"Traditionally it may be pointed out that a ‘per curiam’ is the opinion of the court in which the judges are all of one mind and the question involved is so clear that it is not considered necessary to elaborate it by an extended discussion."
Newmons v. Lake Worth Drainage Dist., for Use & Benefit of Martin, 87 So. 2d 49, 50 (Fla. 1956).
In Vega v. State, which was a sexual predator incarceration hearing in which the defendant's sentence had expired but the State still sought to keep the defendant in custody, there was a trial in which the jury's verdict was that the defendant should not be held in custody for any further period.
The judge promptly ignored the verdict and ordered the defendant into custody.
The defendant appealed.
Seems pretty serious. A case of first impression for sure. Ripe for a well reasoned opinion setting precedent for the State. The type of case appellate judges presumably fight each other for the right to write the opinion.
And the 3rd DCA in Vega v. State did this: "Per curiam, affirmed."
For those non-lawyers who read the blog, "per curiam" does not mean "we punt", or "scaredy cat", or anything other than what is stated above.
So here is what we have- a decision of a trial court incarcerating a defendant who has served his sentence and against the verdict of the jury.
We have the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which says, inter alia, that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law.
And we have the 3rd DCA which says "per curiam, affirmed."
Puzzling. Truly puzzling.
See You In Court.