Kothman v. State, AR-428
| Decision Date | 08 December 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. AR-428,AR-428 |
| Citation | 442 So.2d 357 |
| Parties | Milton R. KOTHMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles G. Brackins of Meldon & Brackins, Gainesville, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Richard A. Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
This is an appeal of a judgment and sentence for possession of less than 28 grams of cocaine and possession of more than 20 grams, but less than 100 pounds of cannabis. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to determine competence to stand trial and in denying his motion for mistrial after the State adduced evidence from which an inference could be drawn that appellant previously had been charged with criminal activity. We agree that the court erred in denying the motion to determine competence to stand trial.
Kothman moved for a continuance on the grounds that he was hospitalized and unable to assist in preparation of his defense or testify at trial due to certain physical disabilities. At a hearing held on the motion, Kothman's physician, Dr. Pate, said that at that time Kothman was not fully in command of his faculties so as to be able to participate in his defense and that his ability to recall was impaired. He based his opinion on Kothman's inability to recall certain details as to his history and his frequent blackouts due to alcoholism. Dr. Pate thought it would take a week to ten days in order to detoxify Kothman and fourteen to twenty-eight days for him to be able to function adequately. Based on Dr. Pate's testimony, Kothman's counsel sought a thirty day continuance in order to determine if he would be able to help with his defense. Trial was scheduled to take place in four days. The court denied the motion for continuance. Subsequently, defense counsel moved pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.210(b)(1) for a determination of Kothman's competence to stand trial, again basing the motion primarily on Dr. Pate's testimony. The court asked defense counsel if it was his position that Kothman was presently insane and defense counsel replied that he did not contend Kothman was insane. The court refused to set a hearing to determine Kothman's competency to stand trial. In doing so, the trial court erred.
Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.210 governs the procedure for raising the issue of competence to stand trial. Rule 3.210(b) provides:
If before or during the trial the court of its own motion, or upon motion of counsel for the defendant or for the State, has reasonable ground to believe that the defendant is not mentally competent to stand trial, the court shall immediately enter its order setting a time for a hearing to determine the defendant's mental condition ... and shall order the defendant to be examined by no more than three nor fewer than two experts prior to the date of said hearing.
As appellant correctly asserts, the test for competence to stand trial is not whether a defendant is insane, but ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tingle v. State
...v. State, 503 So.2d 1304 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) because of conflict with Scott v. State, 420 So.2d 595 (Fla.1982), and Kothman v. State, 442 So.2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, and quash the decision Tingle was convicted of sex......
-
Gonzalez v. State
...must hold another competency proceeding if a bona fide doubt is raised as to the defendant's continued competence"); Kothman v. State, 442 So.2d 357, 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)(observing that "[o]nce the judge is presented with reasonable grounds to believe a defendant may not have sufficient ......
-
Petrena v. State, 1D03-5182.
...did not abuse its discretion. Appellant misplaces his reliance on the materially distinguishable facts and holdings in Kothman v. State, 442 So.2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), Calloway, and Brockman. Appellant's convictions and sentences are DAVIS and LEWIS, JJ., concur. ...
-
Harriel v. State
...L.Ed.2d 279 (1958); Cooper v. State, 261 So.2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955 (Fla.1984); and Kothman v. State, 442 So.2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). We further find no error in allowing the jury to read a transcript of a recorded drug transaction while the tape of that......