Drummond v. State
69 So. 3d 1054
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Drummond appeals a Baker Act involuntary placement order; Anders briefs filed by counsel for Drummond and State.
- A magistrate presided; Baker Act procedures largely rely on § 394.467 and Rule 1.490 where applicable.
- The magistrate issued findings of fact and a lengthy report recommending involuntary commitment.
- Trial court reviewed exceptions, rejected them, and adopted the magistrate’s report and order.
- On direct appeal, the district court examined the standards of review for findings of fact, law application, and the magistrate’s ultimate conclusion.
- The court explains a three-tier review framework and ultimately affirms the trial court’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard of review applies to findings of fact? | Drummond argues for de novo review of findings. | Drummond and State agree on akin to review for magistrate reports. | De novo review for factual findings; correct standard applied. |
| What standard of review applies to the law applied to the facts? | Drummond contends correct law applied; de novo review. | State argues proper law application; de novo review appropriate. | De novo review to ensure correct law was applied. |
| What standard governs review of the magistrate’s ultimate decision to commit? | Drummond asserts magistrate’s decision should be scrutinized; higher scrutiny due to liberty interests. | State defers to magistrate’s findings; abuse-of-discretion review. | Abuse-of-discretion review of trial court’s affirmation/rejection of magistrate’s conclusions. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Beverly, 342 So.2d 481 (Fla. 1977) (fundamental liberty interests require rigorous review in commitment cases)
- Bergh v. Bergh, 127 So.2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961) (trial court may override magistrate in certain circumstances)
- Carls v. Carls, 890 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (findings of fact supported by competent substantial evidence are entitled to deference)
- Quincoees v. Quincoces, 10 So.3d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (trial court reviews magistrate’s findings with presumption of correctness)
- Anderson v. Anderson, 736 So.2d 49 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (en banc; discuss trial court’s standard of review for magistrate orders)
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1995) (district court’s certiorari review is limited to procedural due process and correct law)