Pedrero v. State
| Decision Date | 26 May 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71--923,71--923 |
| Citation | 262 So.2d 737 |
| Parties | Joe PEDRERO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Lee R. Horton, Public Defender, and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Public Defender, Winter Haven, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant Joe Pedrero appeals to this Court from a judgment of guilt entered against him by the Polk County Criminal Court of Record consequent upon an adverse jury verdict finding him guilty of robbery and possession of narcotics.
Only one point is relied upon here for a reversal, viz: that the trial Court was in error in 'failing to grant appellant a mental examination to determine his competency'.
At the time of his arraignment counsel for Pedrero moved for 'a mental examination by a competent psychiatrist and/or psychologist', alleging in support thereof that he was a drug addict, that he was insane on October 12, 1971 at the time the offenses were committed, that he was also presently insane on November 30, 1971 at the time of trial, and that he had spent a year during 1967 and 1968 in a mental institution 'in Chattahoochee' after being 'declared incompetent with regard to a robbery charge by the Federal Judge of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans'.
The motion for incompetency hearing was denied by the Court without testimony. Such ruling is made the sole basis for Pedrero's contention for reversal here.
Disposition of the instant appeal is ruled by CrPR 3.210(a), 33 F.S.A., and as said rule has been construed by the Supreme Court in Fowler v. State, Fla.1971, 255 So.2d 513.
CrPR 3.210(a) provides inter alia that--
'Rule 3.210 Insanity
(a) At Time of Trial. If before or during trial the court, of its own motion, or upon motion of counsel for the defendant, has reasonable ground to believe that the defendant is insane, the court shall immediately fix a time for a hearing to determine the defendant's mental condition. The court may appoint not exceeding three disinterested qualified experts to examine the defendant and to testify at the hearing as to his mental condition. Other evidence regarding the defendant's mental condition may be introduced at the hearing by either party.'
Sub-section (a) aforesaid applies to alleged insanity at the time of trial. Subsections (b) and (c) provide for procedure when an issue is raised as to the defendant's insanity at the time the alleged offense was committed. Detailed procedure is set forth in said Rule 3.210 when such defense is raised either at the time of trial or the time of the offense. It is not necessary here to go into details of such procedure prescribed because none of it was followed by the trial Judge. The motion for competency hearing, which ipso facto called into play Rule 3.210, was just summarily denied and trial on the merits proceeded.
The Supreme Court of Florida in Fowler v. State, supra, had a somewhat analogous situation before it. Fowler was a capital case and his trial counsel, before the trial actually began, raised the question of Fowler's sanity and the Court appointed two recognized experts in the field of psychiatry, Drs. Spoto and Frierson, 'to examine defendant with a view to rendering opinions both as to defendant's sanity at the time the offense was committed, and as to his competency to stand trial.'
These doctors submitted formal written reports to the effect that Fowler 'was a dangerous paranoid schizophrenic, that he probably did not know right from wrong at the time he committed the offense, and that he was not competent to stand trial.' The State thereupon had a third doctor, one O'Brien, appointed to further examine Fowler. Dr. O'Brien then examined Fowler twice, 'both times rendering the opinion that although defendant was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pedrero v. Wainwright
...and remanded the case to the trial court for a Nunc pro tunc hearing on the issue of competency to stand trial. Pedrero v. State, 1972, Fla.Dist.Ct.App., 262 So.2d 737. The trial court ordered Pedrero examined by two panels of psychiatrists. One member of each panel testified at the compete......
-
Walker v. State, 78-365
...records where defense counsel presented something more than a bare or vague assertion of incompetency. See, e. g., Pedrero v. State, 262 So.2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), on remand 271 So.2d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Mitchell v. State, 289 So.2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), on remand 311 So.2d 181 (Fl......
-
Parks v. State
...content of same, to consider further the proper disposition of this appeal. See Fowler v. State, Fla.1971, 255 So.2d 513; Pedrero v. State, Fla.App.1972, 262 So.2d 737; Cf. Palmer v. State, Fla.App.1972, 264 So.2d It is so ordered. CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur. ...
-
Mitchell v. State, s. 73-416
...accused's constitutional right to a fair trial. Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966). In Pedrero v. State, Fla.App.2nd, 1972, 262 So.2d 737, it was held to be error, under the circumstances presented, to deny a mental examination to determine competency to sta......