that ground. However, Ennis’s contention that the State did not comply with the time requirements of the Ryce Act does raise an issue that is properly the subject of a habeas petition. See Murray, 872 So.2d at 223 (noting that if the petitioner is contending that he was denied due process because the State did not comply with the statutory requirements, he may be entitled to habeas relief); Graham v. State, 826 So.2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (granting habeas relief because the respondent was being detained without a judicial finding of probable cause); Melvin v. State, 804 So.2d 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (granting habeas relief when the State had failed to provide sworn support for the commitment petition); Johnson v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 747 So.2d 402, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>); Valdez v. Moore, 745 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA
holding that habeas relief would be proper if the state failed to comply with the statutory requirement that all members of the multidisciplinary team sign the report supporting the commitment petition holding that a trial courts judgment must comply with the statutory requirement that the judgment contain written findings of fact and conclusions of law holding that a petitioner should be permitted to seek habeas review in state court even if there were doubt that the states substantive law would permit a habeas petition holding that consideration of a claim in a petition for habeas corpus can be barred by failure to comply with state procedural rules holding that the district court must resolve all claims for relief raised in a habeas petition regardless of whether habeas relief is granted or denied