Larimore v. State
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 51
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Larimore pleaded guilty to lewd and lascivious acts on a child in 1991.
- In 2004, while in DOC custody, the state filed a Ryce Act commitment petition.
- In 2008, the Florida Supreme Court held lawful custody is required to initiate Ryce proceedings and that Larimore’s 2004 petition lacked jurisdiction, leading to dismissal with prejudice and release.
- Larimore was later released, reoffended, and was again imprisoned in 2011.
- In 2011, the SIPP/Multidisciplinary Team found Larimore met Ryce criteria and recommended filing a new petition; the state filed it in August 2011.
- Larimore moved to dismiss the 2011 petition on res judicata/collateral estoppel grounds; the circuit court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does res judicata bar the 2011 Ryce petition? | Larimore argues the 2004 petition’s dismissal with prejudice precludes current action. | Larimore contends identity of action persists and judgment bars new petition. | Res judicata does not bar the 2011 petition. |
| Does collateral estoppel bar the 2011 petition? | Larimore asserts the 2008 ruling precludes relitigating custody and related issues. | State argues collateral estoppel does not apply because the issues differ and must be fully litigated anew. | Collateral estoppel does not apply. |
| Is the 2011 Ryce petition jurisdictionally viable given custody requirements? | Larimore relies on the 2008 decision that lawful custody is essential and questions viability. | State contends custody occurred after the 2004 petition was dismissed, so a new petition is procedurally permissible. | The circuit court correctly denied the motion to dismiss. |
Key Cases Cited
- Larimore v. State, 2 So.3d 101 (Fla. 2008) (held lawful custody required to initiate Ryce proceedings; dismissal with prejudice when not in custody)
- Dadeland Depot, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 945 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 2006) (defines conditions for res judicata applicability)
- Saadeh v. Stanton Rowing Found., Inc., 912 So.2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (limits on res judicata collateral estoppel effects)
- M.C.G. v. Hillsborough County Sch. Bd., 927 So.2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (identification of essential facts for duty of res judicata)
- Felder v. Dept. of Mgmt. Serv., 993 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (collateral estoppel framework for prior and subsequent litigation)