Murray v. Regier (2002)

While Murray's previous conviction of a sexually violent offense satisfies one of the statutory criteria of a sexually violent predator, the other requirement is not related to his previous conviction. 872 So.2d at 223 (emphasis added).

Mthough both this Court and the United States Supreme Court have recognized that civil commitment for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of lib erty that requires due process protection, see, e.g., Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979); Murray v. Regier, 872 So.2d 217, 221 (Fla.2002), the decisions discussing this issue have never before addressed the exact type of treatment that is constitutionally mandated.

Id. at 222 (footnote omitted).

Murray v. Regier, 872 So. 2d 217, 223-24 (Fla. 2002)(because petition for writ of habeas corpus raised issues regarding petitioner's detention, the proper court to rule on the petition was the court where petitioner was being detained); Calloway v. State, 699 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(explaining that a circuit court has no jurisdiction to review the legality of a conviction in another circuit); Leichtman v. Singletary, 674 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(holding that a co…

It is designed to test solely the legality of the petitioner’s imprisonment, and may not be used as a substitute for appeal.”); see generally Bush v. State, 945 So. 2d 1207, 1210 (Fla. 2006) (“[I]f the prisoner alleges entitlement to immediate release, a petition for writ of habeas corpus is the proper remedy . . . .”); Murray v. Regier, 872 So. 2d 217, 222 (Fla. 2002) (“[T]he traditional purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to furnish a . . . remedy to one whose liberty …

Murray v. Regier, 872 So.2d 217, 223-24 (Fla.2002)(because petition for writ of habeas corpus raised issues regarding petitioner's detention, the proper court to rule on the petition was the court where petitioner was being detained); Calloway v. State, 699 So.2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(explaining that a circuit court has no jurisdiction to review the legality of a conviction in another circuit); Leichtman v. Singletary, 674 So.2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(holding that a court …

See State v. Harris, 881 So.2d 1079, 1083 (Fla.2004); Murray v. Regier, 872 So.2d 217, 224 (Fla.2002); see also Rodgers, 875 So.2d at 741 ; State v. Heath, 865 So.2d 633, 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Cartwright v. State (In re Commitment of Cartwright), 870 So.2d 152, 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

See Murray v. Regier, 872 So.2d 217, 222 (Fla. 2002) (holding that the writ of habeas corpus “remains available to test pretrial detention" because "[a] detainee should not be foreclosed from raising a constitutional claim pretrial if the resolution of that claim could end a lengthy pretrial detention”); see also Valdez v. Moore, 745 So.2d 1009 (Fla.Dist.App.1999) (granting habeas petition based on petitioners’ due process challenge to pre-trial detention under the JRA witho…

See Murray v. Regier, 872 So.2d 217, 222-23 , 2002 WL 31728885 (Fla. Dec. 5, 2002); Sandstrom v. Leader, 370 So.2d 3, 5 (Fla.1979).

See Murray v. Regier, 872 So.2d 217, 223 (Fla.2002) (determining that the appellate court should have considered the merits of Murray's *261 petition for writ of habeas corpus, which asserted that the civil commitment order was illegal because it violated his constitutional due process rights).

See Murray, 872 So.2d at 222 .

See Bishop v. Sheldon, 68 So.3d 259, 260-61 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (holding a petition for writ of habeas corpus is appropriate to challenge continued illegal detention under the Act based on a claim that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction because the committed person was not in lawful custody at the time that proceedings under the Act were commenced) (citing Murray v. Regier, 872 So.2d 217, 223 (Fla.2002)).

See Murray v. Regier, 872 So.2d 217, 221-22 (Fla.2002) (recognizing that a habeas corpus petition is a proper means to challenge the legality of pretrial detention under the Jimmy Ryce Act); Williams v. State, 870 So.2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (considering the merits of a petition for writ of habeas corpus which sought immediate release because petitioner was not brought to trial within thirty days of the trial court’s finding of probable cause under the Jimmy Ryce Act); Enni…

See Murray v. Regier, 872 So.2d 217 (Fla.2002); Pearman v. State, 764 So.2d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

See Murray v. Regier, 872 So.2d 217 (Fla.2002); Johnson v. State, 947 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Perez v. McDonough, 946 So.2d 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Vale v. State, 946 So.2d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Calloway v. State, 699 So.2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

See also Murray v. Regier, 872 So.2d 217 (Fla.2002).

See also Murray v. Regier, 872 So.2d 217 (Fla.2002).

See also Murray v. Regier, 872 So.2d 217 (Fla. 2002).

See Murray v. Regier, 872 So.2d 217 (Fla. 2002).