Charles MURRAY, Petitioner, v. Jerry REGIER, etc., et al., Respondents, 872 So. 2d 217

HARDING, Senior Justice. We have for review Murray v. Kearney, 770 So.2d 273 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), on the basis of express and direct conflict with this Court’s opinion in Alachua Regional Juvenile Detention Center v. T.O., 684 So.2d 814 (Fla.1996). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Murray also filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Court. We granted review of both matters and consolidated them for purposes of oral argument. This case has a long and rather convoluted procedural history.

Charles Murray is currently being detained in a state treatment center pending his commitment trial under the Jimmy Ryce Act (the Act). Murray was convicted in Dade County of attempted capital sexual battery on a minor child through a plea agreement in which he agreed to a term of incarceration followed by probation with the condition that he complete a sex offender treatment program. After Murray served the incar-cerative portion of his sentence, but prior to his release for probation, the State filed a petition to have Murray civilly committed as a sexually violent predator under the Act.

Murray then filed a motion for specific performance of his criminal plea agreement, arguing that he should be released to serve the agreed-upon probation. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court denied Murray’s motion. Murray then filed a petition for writ of habeas ’ corpus with the Fourth District Court of Appeal, seeking his release from the treatment center based upon an alleged violation of his constitutional right to due process.

The Fourth District Court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over the circuit court that ordered Murray’s pretrial detention under the Act and transferred the habeas petition to the Third District Court of Appeal. The Third District Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the habeas petition because Murray was not confined in the court’s territorial jurisdiction and transferred the petition back to the Fourth District Court.

The Fourth District Court then dismissed the petition, without prejudice to Murray to seek a written order on his motion for specific performance of the plea agreement and to seek review of that order in the Third District Court of Appeal. On Murray’s motion for rehearing, clarification, or certification, the Fourth District Court withdrew its order of dismissal and ordered the State to respond to Murray’s petition. The Fourth District Court then issued an opinion concluding that it did not have jurisdiction and once again dismissed Murray’s petition.

The district court noted that habeas relief is unavailable where an appeal is available and concluded that Murray should have appealed the order of civil commitment, appealed the denial of his motion to enforce the plea, or moved to withdraw his plea. Upon Murray’s motion for rehearing, the Fourth District Court withdrew this opinion and issued a substitute opinion on November 1, 2000, which is the subject of the instant proceedings. See Murray v. Kearney, 770 So.2d 273 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

In the opinion under review, the Fourth District Court again stated that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of Murray’s petition and dismissed it. See id. at 274. The district court stated that its habeas jurisdiction was limited to determining whether the challenged order was entered without jurisdiction or was illegal. The district court cited this Court’s opinion in Alachua Regional, which addressed the scope of review when the court entertaining a habeas petition does not have supervisory or appellate jurisdiction over the court that issued the order under challenge.

See Murray, 770 So.2d at 274. Under this inquiry, the Fourth District Court determined that Murray was not entitled to relief because the trial court that issued the commitment order had jurisdiction over the cause and the order was legal. See id. at 274-75. The district court noted that Murray’s civil commitment was not a continuation of his incarceration from the plea because the criminal case involved a totally separate proceeding. The court further noted that Murray had not raised an argument that his confinement violates the requirements of the Act. See id.

In a footnote, the district court characterized Murray’s claim as “alleging an equitable estoppel against the state pursuing civil commitment” because he had substantially changed his position by agreeing to the plea and sentence seven years before and that he had not received the bargained-for benefit of release from confinement. See id. at 275 n. 4.

After the district court dismissed Murray’s habeas petition, he filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court based on express and direct conflict and also filed a habeas petition with this Court, arguing that his civil commitment order is illegal because it violates his due process right to specific performance of his plea agreement. We granted review in both cases and consolidated them for all appellate purposes. We resolve this matter on the basis that the Fourth District Court’s decision is in conflict with this Court’s opinion in Alachua Regional.

For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Fourth District Court did not correctly apply Alachua Regional to the facts of the instant case. In Alachua Regional, this Court explained the scope of review when a court entertaining a habeas corpus petition does not have supervisory or appellate jurisdiction over the court that issued the order or other process under challenge. See 684 So.2d at 816. Under such circumstances, the scope of the reviewing court’s jurisdiction is limited to whether the court that entered the order was without jurisdiction to do so or whether the order is void or illegal.

Id. “The reviewing court may not discharge the detainee if the detention order is merely defective, irregular, or insufficient in form or substance.” Id. In the instant case, the Fourth District Court dismissed Murray’s habeas petition, concluding that it “[did] not have jurisdiction.” Murray, 770 So.2d at 274. The district court concluded that under Ala-chua Regional Murray’s commitment order was not illegal because the trial court had jurisdiction over the matter and the order did not violate the procedural requirements of the Act. See id. at 274-75.

Murray contends that no court has ever considered the merits of his constitutional claim, that is, that the civil commitment violates his constitutional right to due process because the plea agreement in his criminal case specified that he would receive sex offender treatment while on probation supervision in the community. The procedural history of this case, recounted above, indeed reflects that Murray has been frustrated in his efforts to have the merits of his habeas claim considered by some court.

While the scope of habeas inquiry by a court that does not have supervisory or appellate jurisdiction over the court which issued the order under challenge “is limited to whether the court that entered the order was without jurisdiction to do so -or whether the order is void or illegal,” Alachua Regional, 684 So.2d at 816, this limited inquiry does not foreclose constitutional challenges to pre-tnal detention or leave a petitioner like Murray without an avenue to bring such a challenge. ' Under the Fourth District Court’s

interpretation of Alachua Regional, a claim of illegality only encompasses the statutory or procedural requirements of the Act, and not constitutional claims like Murray’s. As this Court explained in Haag v.

State, 591 So.2d 614, 616 (Fla.1992), while the right to habeas relief “is subject to certain reasonable limitations consistent with [its] full and fair exercise,” it “should be available to all through simple and direct means, without needless complication or impediment, and should be fairly administered in favor of justice and not bound by technicality.” Further, “civil commitment for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection.” Addington v.

Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979); see also In re Beverly, 342 So.2d 481 (Fla.1977) (recognizing that civil commitment to a mental institution involves a deprivation of liberty and thus due process guarantees must be provided). In light of these principles, we conclude that the Fourth District Court has interpreted the term “illegal” too narrowly. Under Alachua Regional, the reviewing court may discharge the detainee if the detention order is “void or illegal,” but not if the order “is merely defective, irregular, or insufficient in form or substance.” 684 So.2d at 816.

A challenge to the form or substance of an order implies that something is lacking in the order or that it contains an imperfection or shortcoming. Alachua Regional followed a long line of cases that recognized similar limitations on a circuit court’s habeas review. See, e.g., State ex rel. Scaldeferri v. Sandstrom, 285 So.2d 409 (Fla.1973) (holding that circuit court may entertain habeas corpus proceeding and discharge petitioner held under an illegal or void order issued by a court over which there is no appellate jurisdiction, but may not review “the legal sufficiency of the order”); Janes v.

Heidtman, 272 So.2d 207, 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973) (permitting reviewing court without appellate jurisdiction to discharge a person based on illegality of order, but not upon a determination of irregularity, insufficiency in form or substance or for other matters going to the propriety of the order). Under this precedent, a reviewing court without supervisory or appellate jurisdiction over the court that issued the detention order may not entertain a challenge to the form of the order.

In approving the district court’s determination that the detention order in Alachua Regional was illegal, we noted that the “court did not pass on the sufficiency of the form or substance of the order or any other matter going to the propriety of the order.” 684 So.2d at 816-17. Even under the limited inquiry of Alachua Regional, the reviewing court is “permitted to view the detention order in light of the relevant facts and law.” Id. at 817.

If the challenged detention order was determined to be in violation of the petitioner’s constitutional guarantee of due process, then the order would clearly be “illegal” and not merely defective, irregular, or insufficient in form or substance. See also Valdez v. Moore, 745 So.2d 1009, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (granting petition for writ of habeas corpus based on a due process challenge by petitioners detained under the Jimmy Ryce Act without a probable cause hearing).

The State argues that Murray should simply wait until the civil commitment process is complete and then raise his constitutional challenge on appeal. However, as Murray points out in his brief, he has already been held in pretrial detention for more than three years after his criminal incarceration expired. Such lengthy pretrial detentions are apparently not uncommon in civil commitment proceedings under the Act, at least up to this point in time.

See The Florida' Legislature, Office of Economic & Demographic Research, Criminal Justice Sexually Violent Predator Program, Time from Referral to Trial to Commitment or Release (visited November 20, 2002) <http://wmv.state.fl.us/edr/Conferences/ Criminal Justicelpredator.htm > (statistical chart indicating that the average time from referral to sexually violent predator program to trial for individuals committed under the Act is 683 days). A detainee should not be foreclosed from raising a constitutional claim pretrial if the resolution of that claim could end a lengthy pretrial detention.

Indeed, the traditional purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to furnish a speedy hearing and remedy to one whose liberty is unlawfully restrained. See Janes, 272 So.2d at 208; see also Leichtman v. Singletary, 674 So.2d 889, 892 & n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (recognizing that although rule 3.850 “completely superseded habeas corpus as the means of collateral attack of a judgment and sentence” habeas remains available to test pretrial detention).

Because Murray is being detained in the territorial jurisdiction of the Fourth District Court of Appeal and he raises constitutional issues regarding his detention, the Fourth District Court was the proper court to rule upon his petition for habeas corpus. See Alachua Regional, 684 So.2d at 816 (recognizing that prisoner should file habeas petition in the district court which has territorial jurisdiction over the prison where the prisoner is detained and noting that proper respondent in a habeas petition is the party that has actual custody and is in a position to physically produce the prisoner); Valdez v.

Moore, 745 So.2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (declining to exercise jurisdiction over habeas petition challenging constitutionality of pretrial detention under Jimmy Ryce Act where petitioners were detained in the territorial jurisdiction of the Fourth District Court of Appeal and transferring petition to the Fourth District Court); see also § 79.01, Fla. Stat. (2000) (“[T]he court, justice, or judge to whom such application is made shall grant the writ forthwith, against the person in whose custody the applicant is detained.”).

Further, as explained above, Murray’s constitutional claim questions the legality of his civil commitment order and thus falls within the parameters of Alachua Regional and should have been addressed by the Fourth District Court. Despite our conclusion that the Fourth District Court should have considered the merits of Murray’s claim that his civil commitment order is illegal because it violates his constitutional right to due process, we conclude that Murray is not entitled to relief on this claim.

The plea agreement was part of a criminal proceeding against Murray whereas the commitment order was entered in a civil proceeding based upon clinical evaluations of Murray’s present state. In February and March 1999, two psychologists evaluated Murray and concluded that he suffers from an antisocial personality disorder and should be considered a sexually violent predator as defined by the Act. Based upon these evaluations and Murray’s previous conviction of a sexually violent offense, the State filed a petition for involuntary civil commitment under the Act.

After reviewing the State’s petition and its attachments, the .circuit court determined that there was probable cause to believe that Murray is a sexually violent predator as defined in the Act and is eligible for commitment. Thus, Murray’s involuntary commitment cannot be considered continued punishment for his criminal offense, but was based upon clinical evaluations of his present state. 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. In Kansas v.

Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997), the United States Supreme Court addressed several constitutional challenges to a similar Kansas statute which provides for the involuntary commitment of sexually violent predators. The Supreme Court concluded that the Kansas statute was civil, not punitive, and thus did- not violate substantive due process, ex post facto, or double jeopardy guarantees. The Supreme Court recognized that commitment as a sexually violent predator constitutes a separate proceeding from the criminal action that was based on the individual’s sexually violent offense.

In rejecting Hendricks’ claim that his commitment as a sexually violent predator violates the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy, the Supreme Court noted “[i]f an individual otherwise meets the requirements for involuntary civil commitment, the State is under no obligation to release that individual simply because the detention would follow a period of incarceration.” Id. at 370, 117 S.Ct. 2072. Further, in Baxstrom v.

Herold, 383 U.S. 107, 86 S.Ct. 760, 15 L.Ed.2d 620 (1966), the Supreme Court expressly recognized that civil commitment could follow the expiration of a prison term without offending double jeopardy principles. The Supreme Court reasoned that “there is no conceivable basis for distinguishing the commitment of a person who is nearing the end of a penal term from all other civil commitments.” Id. at 111-12, 86 S.Ct. 760.

Thus, we conclude that any bargain that a defendant may strike in a plea agreement in a criminal case would have no bearing on a subsequent involuntary civil commitment for control, care,- and treatment. Consequently, Murray’s constitutional claim is without merit and he was not entitled to release from detention on this basis. For the reasons expressed above, we quash the decision below but conclude that Murray has not presented a claim that warrants dismissal of his commitment under the Act.

We also deny Murray’s petition to this Court for habeas corpus and remand this cause to the district court with direction that habeas relief be denied. It is so ordered. SHAW, WELLS, and LEWIS, JJ., concur. QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion, in which ANSTEAD, C.J., concurs. PARIENTE, J., recused. . See §§ 394.910-394.930, Fla. Stat. (2000). As enacted in 1998, the Jimmy Ryce Act appeared in

chapter 916, which is entitled “Mentally Deficient and Mentally Ill Defendants.” See §§ 916.31-916.49, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998); ch. 98-64, at 445-455, Laws of Fla. After the Act went into effect on January 1, 1999, it was transferred to

chapter 394, which is entitled "Mental Health.” See ch. 99-222, at 1372, Laws of Fla. . At the time that he filed his habeas petition, Murray was being held in the Martin County Treatment Center, which is under the territorial jurisdiction of the Fourth District Court of Appeal. Murray was subsequently transferred to the South Bay Correctional Facility, where he remains detained. . The pretrial detention order was entered by the circuit court in Dade County, which has jurisdiction over Murray's commitment proceeding. This court is under the appellate jurisdiction of the Third District Court of Appeal. .

Murray was scheduled to be released from prison on March 1, 1999. . Once this Court accepts jurisdiction over a cause in order to resolve a legal issue in conflict, we have jurisdiction over all issues. See Savoie v. State, 422 So.2d 308 (Fla.1982). Our authority to consider issues other than those upon which jurisdiction is based is discretionary and is exercised only when these other issues have been properly briefed and argued and are dispositive of the case. See Savona v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 648 So.2d 705, 707 (Fla.1995). We consider Murray's constitutional claim under this authority- .

Section 394.912(10), ‘ Florida Statutes (2000), defines a sexually violent predator as any person who "[h]as been convicted of a sexually violent offense” and who "[s]uffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility for long-term control, care, and treatment.”