Meeks v. State, 73--334

• Citation: 289 So.2d 479
• Decision Date: 05 February 1974
• Docket Number: No. 73--334,73--334
• Parties: Wilbert MEEKS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)

Page 479

289 So.2d 479

Wilbert MEEKS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73--334.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 5, 1974.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender and Steven Rappaport, Asst. Public Defender, and Harris Sperber, Legal Intern, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and William L. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

CARROLL, Judge.

The appellant was convicted of assault with intent to commit robbery and assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree, for which two sentences for imprisonment for a period of fifteen years were imposed, to be served consecutively. Appealing therefrom the appellant contends the trial court erred by failing to grant him a mental examination to determine his competency to stand trial; by denying his motion for continuance; and by imposing separate sentences.

The appellant with two companions entered the office of a taxi cab company in South Miami. The appellant and one of the others held hand guns pointed at the man who was on duty there. They asked him where the money was. He informed them there was no money. One of the invaders made a search. No money was found. After repeated statements by the employee that no money was kept at the place, the robbery effort was abandoned and the intruders departed, but before doing so, as a 'parting shot,' the appellant shot the employee in the fact. After the latter fell to the floor the other intruder with a gun fired two shots into him. The victim survived and was able to testify to those facts.

When arraigned appellant pleaded not guilty. No plea or contention of insanity at the time of the commission of the offense was presented. However, on the day of trial the appellant's counsel filed a motion for a mental examination of the defendant to determine his capacity to stand trial, under Rule 3.210 CrPR, 33 F.S.A. The motion submitted the following ground: '* * * that three years prior thereto he had suffered a head injury in a railroad accident and has had recurring headaches since'; that he had used 'acid', which 'had an effect upon his mental faculties'; that he had 'been evaluated by a psychologist in various institutions that he has been incarcerated in'; that two of his brothers had been confined in mental institutions; that he was 'stoned' on marijuana at the time of the alleged offenses; and that he 'has difficulty understanding the nature of the charges against him and has difficulty in communicating with counsel.'

Rule 3.210(a) CrPR provides: 'If before or during trial the court, of its own motion, or upon motion of counsel for the defendant, has reasonable grounds 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 rule then provides that the court may appoint disinterested qualified experts to examine the defendant and testify at the hearing as to his mental condition and may receive other evidence relating thereto. Following is a provision for proceeding with the trial if the court decides the defendant is sane, and of commission of the defendant to the proper institution if the court decides the defendant is insane.

A hearing upon the issue is obligatory if a reasonable doubt is raised as to the defendant's sanity. It is so provided in the cited rule, as it was in the statute which preceded the rule, as § 917.01 Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Brock v. State, Fla.1954, 69 So.2d 344, 346; Fowler v. State, Fla.1971, 255 So.2d 513. The trial court, upon consideration of the motion after argument thereon, concluded that reasonable grounds to believe the defendant was insane were not shown. Prior to reaching that decision the trial...