Oats v. State, 65381
| Decision Date | 25 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 65381,65381 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 246 Sonny Boy OATS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Christopher S. Quarles, Chief, Capital Appeals, Asst. Public Defender, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, Florida, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and W. Brian Bayly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, Florida, for appellee.
We review the imposition of the death sentence in this case pursuant to jurisdiction granted in article V, section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution.
Oats was found guilty of first-degree murder and the jury recommended the death penalty. The trial court sentenced Oats to death. On appeal, this Court affirmed the conviction, but held that three of the six aggravating factors found by the trial court were erroneous. The case was remanded to the trial court for entry of a new sentencing order. Oats v. State, 446 So.2d 90 (Fla.1984).
At the sentencing hearing on remand, Oats's attorney asked that the trial court appoint experts to determine Oats's sanity. The court refused and denied a motion to impanel a jury. The court found that Oats had previously been convicted of another violent felony, 1 that the murder occurred during commission of a robbery, that the murder was committed to avoid lawful arrest, and that the murder was cold, calculated and premeditated. Oats was again sentenced to death.
Oats first attacks the propriety of the trial court's refusal to appoint a panel of experts to determine his sanity at the time of sentencing. Defense counsel's representation that Oats might not be competent to be sentenced, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(a)(1), was based on communication he had had with Oats. The substance of this communication could not be revealed because of the attorney-client privilege. As additional evidence of Oats's mental state, defense counsel relied on expert testimony presented during the trial concerning Oats's mental state.
Oats took the witness stand and, under questioning by the state and the defense, revealed adequate orientation as to time and place, but he professed confusion as to the exact nature of the proceeding facing him. The trial court refused to appoint the experts.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.740(a) conditions the postponement of sentencing on "the Court [having] reasonable ground to believe that the defendant is insane." The trial court here rejected the evidence presented at trial as reasonable grounds for believing Oats was insane because that evidence had affirmatively supported Oats's sanity. The court also found no reasonable ground in Oats's testimony at the hearing. Thus, the narrow issue before this Court is whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to appoint experts to examine the defendant when the only evidence of defendant's possible insanity is the defense counsel's unsupported suggestion that defendant is not presently sane. We hold it did not.
The clear language of the rule requires the court to find "reasonable ground" for believing the defendant is insane. This rule differs materially from Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210, which requires the court to appoint experts when defense counsel (or the state) files a written motion suggesting defendant may be incompetent to stand trial. Rule 3.740 also differs from Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.216, which requires the court to appoint an expert to consult with the defense if defense counsel has reason to believe defendant may have been insane at the time of the offense. Rules 3.210 and 3.216 clearly remove all discretion from the trial court and require it to rely upon representations of defense counsel, without more.
In State v. Hamilton, 448 So.2d 1007 (Fla.1984), we explained the courts' lack of discretion in appointing psychiatric experts prior to trial:
Any inquiry into counsel's basis to believe that his indigent client is incompetent to stand trial or was insane at the time of the offense also impermissibly subjects the indigent defendant to an adversary proceeding concerning...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DAILEY v. Sec'y, Case No. 8:07-CV-1897-T-27MAP
...jury relied on the infirm aggravating circumstances in recommending death under the circumstances of this case. See, e.g., Oats v. State, 472 So. 2d 1143 (Fla.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 865, 106 S. Ct. 188, 88 L. Ed. 2d 157 (1985) (no error where court declined to empanel penalty phase jury ......
-
Oats v. Singletary
...refusal to appoint a panel of experts to determine his sanity at resentencing and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed. Oats v. State, 472 So.2d 1143, 1144 (Fla.1985). The court concluded that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Oats' Rule 3.740 motion and concluded that t......
-
Oats v. Jones, SC17–68
...trial court reweighed the valid aggravating factors and again imposed the death penalty, which this Court then affirmed. Oats v. State , 472 So.2d 1143, 1145 (Fla.), cert. denied , 474 U.S. 865, 106 S.Ct. 188, 88 L.Ed.2d 157 (1985). This Court later affirmed the trial court's denial of Oats......
-
Davis v. State, 80972
...where the new jury would have considered essentially the same evidence as was presented to the original jury. Oats v. State, 472 So.2d 1143, 1144-45 (Fla.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 865, 106 S.Ct. 188, 88 L.Ed.2d 157 In the instant case, we remanded to the trial court specifically to "reweigh......