State v. W.S.L.
| Decision Date | 27 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 67282,67282 |
| Citation | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 131,485 So.2d 421 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 131 STATE of Florida, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, v. W.S.L., a child, Respondent/Cross-Petitioner. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for petitioner/cross-respondent.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Asst. Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Clearwater, for respondent/cross-petitioner.
This case is before us on petition to review a decision reported as W.S.L. v. State, 470 So.2d 828 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), in which the Second District Court of Appeal certified the following question as being of great public importance:
When a defendant is guilty of felony murder, can he be convicted of, although not sentenced for, the underlying felony?
Id. at 830. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
The district court held that the trial court erred in adjudicating respondent guilty on both the felony murder and the underlying felony of sexual battery, and reversed the conviction and sentence for sexual battery. We answered the same certified question contrary to this ruling in State v. Enmund, 476 So.2d 165 (Fla.1985), by holding that the underlying felony is not a necessarily lesser included offense of felony murder and that a defendant can be convicted of and sentenced for both felony murder and the underlying felony.
The district court also held that the trial court erroneously denied respondent's motion for a determination of his competency to stand trial, and it remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the matter. We agree with the district court that respondent was entitled to a hearing on his competency to stand trial. We find, however, in accordance with our recent decision in Hill v. State, 473 So.2d 1253 (Fla.1985), that a hearing to determine whether respondent was competent at the time he was tried cannot be held retroactively because respondent's "due process rights would not be adequately protected" under such a procedure. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 183, 95 S.Ct. 896, 909, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975). Such a hearing must be conducted contemporaneously with the trial. Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 387, 86 S.Ct. 836, 843, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966).
Accordingly, we quash those portions of the district court's decision which hold that respondent cannot be convicted and sentenced for both first-degree felony murder and the underlying felony, and that respondent's competency to stand trial can be determined retrospectively. We vacate the convictions and sentences and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perez v. Dept. of Corrections
...importance by a District Court of Appeal after resolving the same issue in another case so certified a year earlier); State v. W.S.L., 485 So.2d 421 (Fla.1986) d. Counsel Failed to Pursue the Available Avenues The Court finds that Rodriguez's ineffectiveness began with his inexplicable fail......
-
Holmes v. State, 83-1055
...to stand trial renders such a decision impractical. Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966); State v. W.S.L., 485 So.2d 421 (Fla.1986). If Holmes is found competent, he may be retried. If, on the other hand, Holmes is ruled incompetent to stand trial, the state m......
-
Roberts v. State
...the homicide is part of the res gestae of the felony"); W.S.L. v. State, 470 So.2d 828 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), quashed on other grounds, 485 So.2d 421 (Fla.1986) (conviction of felony murder proper where murder and felony are part of one criminal episode). Pretending to be some type of law enfo......