McCray v. State
230 So. 3d 495
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Moses McCray was adjudicated incompetent to proceed due to mental illness and has not been restored to competency.
- The State charged McCray with burglary and related theft offenses; the trial court previously placed him on conditional release under section 916.17, which this court partially quashed in McCray v. State.
- In McCray v. State, 200 So. 3d 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), this court held McCray ineligible for involuntary commitment under section 916.13 and therefore ineligible for statutory conditional release under section 916.17; the court declined to dismiss the information under section 916.145 because fewer than five years had elapsed since the original incompetency determination.
- On remand the trial court struck the prior section 916.17 conditional-release order but then imposed many of the same liberty-limiting conditions relying on Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(d) and expressly stated that DCF had no further monitoring obligation.
- McCray filed a second certiorari petition arguing the court lacked authority to impose those conditions after the appellate decision and that law-of-the-case and res judicata barred the State from asserting rule 3.212(d).
- The Second District denied the petition, holding the trial court permissibly imposed appropriate release conditions under rule 3.212(d) and that neither law-of-the-case nor res judicata precluded the State from advancing that argument on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McCray) | Defendant's Argument (State/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could impose liberty-limiting release conditions after this court quashed statutory conditional release under §916.17 | Trial court lacked authority to reimpose equivalent conditions because McCray did not meet statutory criteria for involuntary commitment or conditional release | Rule 3.212(d) permits release on appropriate conditions when a defendant is incompetent but not commitable; the court may use procedural rule to protect defendant and public | Held: Trial court properly imposed appropriate release conditions under rule 3.212(d) rather than statutory conditional release; certiorari denied |
| Whether law-of-the-case bars the State from invoking rule 3.212(d) on remand | McCray contends prior opinion foreclosed any reimposition of conditional-like conditions | State argues law-of-the-case applies only to issues actually decided on the earlier appeal; rule 3.212(d) was not raised or decided in prior appeal | Held: Law-of-the-case does not apply because rule 3.212(d) was not decided in the prior appeal |
| Whether res judicata prevents the State from raising rule 3.212(d) after earlier proceedings | McCray asserts the State should have raised the argument earlier and cannot relitigate | State notes prevailing party does not raise arguments below and appellate rulings cannot be based on arguments not preserved; res judicata does not cover matters not previously litigated | Held: Res judicata does not bar the State from raising rule 3.212(d) on remand |
| Whether dismissal under §916.145 was required on remand | McCray renewed motion to dismiss based on statute | State opposed; trial court denied renewal | Held: Trial court properly denied renewed motion to dismiss (consistent with prior holding that fewer than five years had passed) |
Key Cases Cited
- McCray v. State, 200 So. 3d 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (prior appellate disposition addressing ineligibility for §916.17 conditional release)
- State v. Miranda, 137 So. 3d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (rule 3.212(d) allows up to one year of appropriate release conditions including outpatient treatment and evaluations)
- Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Amaya, 10 So. 3d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (when defendant is ineligible for commitment, court may release on appropriate conditions under rule 3.212(d))
- Graham v. Jenne, 837 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (discussing scope of release conditions under rule 3.212(d))
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014) (rules 3.210–3.212 govern competency procedures)
- Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2001) (describing law-of-the-case doctrine applicability)
- Kimbrell v. Paige, 448 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1984) (explaining res judicata scope and preclusive effect)