Rogers v. State, 1D05-1840.
| Decision Date | 04 April 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D05-1840.,1D05-1840. |
| Citation | 954 So.2d 64 |
| Parties | Christine Lashay ROGERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven A. Been, Laura Anstead, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defenders, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Carolyn J. Mosley, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Appellant seeks reversal of her convictions and judgment of second-degree murder. She alleges that the trial court reversibly erred by failing to conduct a hearing on Appellant's competence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210 on the authority of Robertson v. State, 699 So.2d 1343 (Fla.1997), receded from on other grounds in Delgado v. State, 776 So.2d 233 (Fla.2000); Hill v. State, 473 So.2d 1253 (Fla.1985); and Burns v. State, 884 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). We agree and reverse.
Hill, Robertson, and Burns hold that it is the independent duty of the trial judge to grant a competency hearing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210 when there is evidence that a defendant may be incompetent to stand trial, not that he or she is incompetent (however, of course, it is also the duty of defense counsel, not exercised here).
The facts reveal this is the case here. The trial judge first appointed a Dr. Bingham to inquire about Appellant's competency to stand trial; he concluded that Appellant had an overall I.Q. of 58 and was mentally retarded and incompetent to stand trial. After receipt of Dr. Bingham's evaluation, the trial court ordered another evaluation of Appellant's competency to stand trial by a Dr. Larson. Dr. Larson conducted an examination and opined that Appellant, 14 years of age at the time of examination (13 at the time of the homicide), was functioning on a third-grade level with an I.Q. of 69, rather than 58, as concluded by Dr. Bingham. However, Dr. Larson also opined that Appellant was within the mildly retarded range and that Appellant "earned a verbal I.Q. score of 66, a performance I.Q. of 69 and a full scale I.Q. score of 65." Of the two tests that Dr. Larson conducted, one indicated that Appellant was mildly retarded, and the other indicated that her intelligence was low, but not in the retarded range. He concluded that she might be mentally retarded, but more likely than not she functioned above the retarded range. Following the submission of Dr. Larson's written report, Appellee moved for a third examination by a Dr. Haga. Dr. Haga's bottom-line conclusion was that Appellant's "true intellectual ability probably falls within the borderline category more so than in the mild mentally retarded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. State
...But we reversed her conviction and sentence because the trial court failed to conduct a competency hearing. Rogers v. State , 954 So. 2d 64, 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). On remand, the trial court found her competent to proceed and retried her. The jury found her guilty, and we affirmed her judg......
-
Rogers v. State, 1D08-2856.
...concerning her competency made it incumbent upon the trial court to conduct a competency hearing under the rule. Rogers v. State, 954 So.2d 64, 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). The prior panel reversed Ms. Rogers' conviction outright, albeit without foreclosing retrial if she were deemed competent o......
-
Coker v. State
...Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210 was held. When an accused's competency is in doubt, a competency hearing is required. Rogers v. State, 954 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). The failure to secure a written order so providing constitutes deficient performance and compels relief if Appellant can ......
-
Pretrial motions and defenses
...are provided regarding competency, the court must hold a hearing, despite the failure of the defendant to request one. Rogers v. State, 954 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) Second District Court of Appeal Trial court found the defendant incompetent to proceed with trial, but denied his motion ......