Mitchell v. State
| Decision Date | 06 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | 73-417,Nos. 73-416,s. 73-416 |
| Citation | 289 So.2d 418 |
| Parties | Homer Wayne MITCHELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James A. Gardner, Public Defender, Sarasota, and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahasee, and Richard C. Booth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant, Homer Wayne Mitchell, was charged in two separate informations with assault with intent to murder. The offenses involved different victims and allegedly occurred on the same night. In due course the cases were scheduled for trial. Approximately three days prior to the date case number 73-417 was to be tried, counsel for appellant filed motions for continuance and for sanity inquisition. The trial court, after proper hearing, denied the appellant's motions. Subsequently, at a second hearing on the same motions, the trial court granted the motion for continuance and again denied appellant's motion for sanity inquisition.
Appellant was tried by jury and found guilty as charged. He was sentenced to a term of 15 years in the state prison.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a sanity inquisition. The grounds in support of the motion were (1) that the appellant was unable to recall anything about the incidents under which he was charged, and so could not assist counsel in his defense, (2) that counsel had recently been advised by appellant that he had previously received treatment in a mental institution, and (3) that they had recently discovered that appellant had been indicted for first-degree murder in Texas.
At the hearing on the motion, the appellant's counsel informed the judge that the appellant couldn't give any information whatsoever concerning the events with which the appellant had been charged. Counsel further stated that appellant was '. . . a little bit spacey, very nervous and up tight. . . .' In denying the motion the trial judge stated:
. . . I would have to have indication, substantially a strong probability that he was either not able to go to trial, or that he was unable to distinguish between right and wrong on the date of the offense. . . .
If sufficient evidence is produced to indicate reasonable grounds for the belief of existence of incapacity to assist in the preparation of a defense, the court's failure to make such inquiry is deprival of the accused's constitutional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. State
...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 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Meeks v. State, 289 So.2d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Boggs v. State, 375 So.2d 604 (Fla. ......
- Dempster v. Dempster, T-456