Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hogue v. State, 14-1932 (2015)

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Number: 14-1932 Visitors: 3
Filed: Jul. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed July 22, 2015. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. _ No. 3D14-1932 Lower Tribunal No. 14-MH-127-K _ Cody Hogue, Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Richard J. Fowler, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and John Eddy Morrison, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Shane Weaver, Assistant Attor
More
       Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                            Opinion filed July 22, 2015.
         Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                               ________________

                               No. 3D14-1932
                       Lower Tribunal No. 14-MH-127-K
                             ________________


                                 Cody Hogue,
                                    Appellant,

                                        vs.

                            The State of Florida,
                                    Appellee.


      An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Richard J. Fowler,
Judge.

      Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and John Eddy Morrison, Assistant
Public Defender, for appellant.

     Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Shane Weaver, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.


Before SHEPHERD, EMAS, and LOGUE, JJ.

     LOGUE, J.
      Given that there is competent, substantial evidence in the record regarding

the Defendant’s mental illness, the trial court correctly entered the order for

involuntary inpatient placement in an effort to provide the Defendant with the care

he needed. See Burley v. State, 
59 So. 3d 131
, 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding

“that there was substantial competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings

and involuntary commitment pursuant to the Baker Act,” but “revers[ing] the order

under review and remand[ing] to allow the parties’ attorneys to make closing

arguments.”). The trial court’s judgment of commitment is accordingly affirmed.




                                         2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer