In Re Commitment of Phillips
69 So. 3d 951
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2010Background
- Phillips, a detainee under the Jimmy Ryce Act, seeks prohibition to halt commitment proceedings in Collier County; he argues lack of lawful custody when proceedings began (Dec. 6, 2005).
- Phillips' sentence for violation of probation was later corrected to expire Aug. 31, 2005, after postconviction gain and credit determinations; DOC re-calculated and found custody ended before initiation of commitment.
- Commitment petition was filed after Phillips was transferred to the Florida Civil Commitment Center and evaluated for likelihood of being a sexually violent predator.
- Larimore v. State held a commitment petitioner must be in lawful custody to trigger circuit court jurisdiction; court remanded to consider custody disputes.
- Bishop v. Sheldon applied Larimore’s custody rule to a similar factual pattern and remanded for factual resolution of custody before commitment proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Phillips was in lawful custody when commitment proceedings began | Phillips: custody expired August 31, 2005 | State: gain time did not render custody unlawful | No lawful custody; jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether § 394.9135 may authorize initiation of proceedings despite custody status | Is safety-valve applicable given immediate release? | Safety valve not applicable when custody not present | Not applicable; Larimore controls |
| Role of gain time (basic vs incentive) in custody determination | Credit award affects custody status | Incentive gain time should be treated as vested and included | Both basic and incentive gain time are included in custody calculation |
| Whether the court should certify a question to the Florida Supreme Court | Question certified as one of great public importance; jurisdiction conclusion affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Larimore v. State, 2 So. 3d 101 (Fla. 2008) (requires lawful custody for initiation of commitment; supports prohibition when not present)
- Atkinson v. State, 831 So.2d 172 (Fla. 2002) (lawful custody required under Act; governs interpretation of custody status)
- Bishop v. Sheldon, 68 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (applies Larimore to custody disputes in similar context; remand for factual custody ruling)
- Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1993) (credit against sentence affecting custody status)
- Gordon v. Regier, 839 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (discusses custody-related principles relevant to commitment proceedings)