M.M., A CHILD, PETITIONER,
v.
CODY WOOD, SUPERINTENDENT LEON REGIONAL JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
M.M. petitioned for habeas corpus relief, arguing she was unlawfully held in secure detention beyond the five-day period mandated by Florida Statute § 985.27(1)(a) without a timely court order extending her detention. The court dismissed the petition as moot because M.M. had been released from detention, declining to exercise jurisdiction over an issue of first impression that would not necessarily evade review if it recurred.
The court held that the statute unmistakably requires removal within five days where the Department has not sought a court order, and that M.M.'s detention should not have continued past day five. However, the court declined to address the merits because the case became moot upon M.M.'s release and the issue, while possibly recurring, would not necessarily evade review.
[1] A child awaiting placement in a nonsecure residential program must be removed from secure detention within 5 days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, unles…
[2] A court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over a moot case, even if the issue presented is capable of repetition yet might evade review, if the issue will not necessar…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The language of the statute unmistakably requires that a child "must be removed from detention within 5 days" where the Department of Juvenile Justice has not sought an order authorizing continued detention.”
Establishes the court's interpretation of the statutory requirement for removal from secure detention.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceM.M., a child in the juvenile justice system, was placed in secure detention awaiting placement in a nonsecure residential program. Under Florida law,…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Capable Of Repetition Yet Evading Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Alleging that she was unlawfully held in postdisposition secure detention beyond the time authorized by law, M.M. petitions the court for habeas corpus relief. She argues that pursuant to section 985.27(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2014), a child such as her who is placed in secure detention awaiting placement in a nonse-cure residential program “must be removed from detention within 5 days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays.”1 Petitioner alleges that her statutory right to removal vested after five days passed without a motion from the Department of Juvenile Justice to extend her secure detention. Although the State eventually sought and secured an order extending her detention beyond the initial five-day period, it did so eleven days after her initial commitment.
The language of the statute unmistakably requires that a child “must be removed from detention within 5 days” where the Department of Juvenile Justice has not sought an order authorizing continued detention. Here, M.M.’s detention should not have continued past day 5, to day 6 and beyond, in the absence of the Department seeking such an order. But, at this point, M.M. also acknowledges that she is no longer in detention care. She urges that we nonetheless entertain the merits of her claim because despite its mootness, the issue she presents is capable of repetition yet might evade review. See generally State v. S.M., 131 So.3d 780 (Fla.2013) (recognizing that a court has jurisdiction to consider the merits of a moot case where the situation presented is capable of repetition but would evade review). Petitioner concedes, however, that the claim she raises is a matter of first impression, and we conclude that while the issue may conceivably recur, it will not necessarily evade review if it does so. We therefore decline to exercise our jurisdiction to address a question that has been rendered moot by petitioner’s release from secure detention.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of ha-beas corpus is DISMISSED as moot.
LEWIS, C.J., THOMAS and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bell v. Battaglia, 332 So. 3d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)
-
Stamm v. State, 270 So. 3d 558 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. & Dep't of Juv. Just. v. S.M., 131 So. 3d 780 (Fla. 2013)