Vasquez v. State
| Decision Date | 30 October 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 67659,67659 |
| Citation | 496 So.2d 818,11 Fla. L. Weekly 548 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 548 Robert VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Paul Morris of the Law Offices of Paul Morris, P.A., Specially Appointed Counsel, Coral Gables, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Jack B. Ludin and Mark J. Berkowitz, Asst. Attys. Gen., Miami, for respondent.
This is a petition to review Vasquez v. State, 474 So.2d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), in which the district court held that petitioner, Robert Vasquez, could not appeal a trial court order denying his motion to dismiss charges on grounds that five years had passed since he was first adjudicated incompetent to stand trial. The district court certified its decision to be in direct conflict with Ricciardelli v. State, 453 So.2d 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We find conflict and have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. We find Vasquez is entitled to review by a petition for common law certiorari; on this case's record, however, we conclude that he was not denied the essential requirements of law and, consequently, approve the result of the district court decision.
In 1979, Vasquez was arrested for first-degree murder and adjudicated incompetent to stand trial. In 1984, Vasquez's counsel moved to dismiss the charges pending against his client pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.213(b). * The parties stipulated that Vasquez met the criteria for involuntary hospitalization and that five years had passed since he was first adjudicated incompetent. At an evidentiary hearing, experts offered conflicting testimony as to whether Vasquez would be competent in the foreseeable future. The trial court concluded that the evidence failed to establish that there was no substantial probability Vasquez would become competent to stand trial in the foreseeable future and denied Vasquez's motion to dismiss.
The district court determined that, if it were to reach the merits of Vasquez's appeal, it would find that substantial competent evidence supported the trial court's decision and affirm. Declining to reach the case's merits, however, the district court dismissed Vasquez's appeal. The district court held that an order "declining to dismiss charges under Rule 3.213(b) against a defendant who indisputably must remain involuntarily hospitalized, has no real effect upon the defendant, and thus, he cannot be heard to complain about the ruling." Vasquez, 474 So.2d at 395. According to the district court, "only a party injuriously affected by the judgment or order sought to be reviewed may appeal." Id.
We disagree with the district court's dismissal of Vasquez's appeal. In Ricciardelli v. State, the Fourth District Court of Appeal recognized the right of appeal in a similar case. In that action, the district court stated:
Ordinarily, the denial of a motion to dismiss would not be appealable because the issue could be raised after a disposition of the case on the merits. However, because of the determination that Ricciardelli remains incompetent to stand trial, the charges may never be decided on the merits, and without this review Ricciardelli would be effectively denied any review of the trial judge's decision.
453 So.2d at 200 (footnote omitted). In State v. Vigil, 410 So.2d 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), the Second District Court of Appeal, under comparable circumstances, allowed the state to seek review by a petition for writ of common law certiorari where the state challenged a court order releasing a defendant acquitted by reason of insanity.
We find that a defendant is entitled to a review of a trial court's determination on a motion to dismiss criminal charges pursuant to rule 3.213(b). Even though direct appeal is not authorized, we find, as the Second District did in Vigil, that a petition for common law certiorari is appropriate to review the matter. If we ruled otherwise, an individual found incompetent to stand trial would have no appellate review of the evidence's sufficiency on this issue and would effectively be placed in permanent commitment. In Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 92 S.Ct. 1845, 32 L.Ed.2d 435 (1972), the United States Supreme Court established certain constitutional due process rights to an incompetent defendant. Review by common law certiorari is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gonzalez v. State
...denying a motion to dismiss criminal charges against an incompetent defendant may be reviewed by common law certiorari. See Vasquez v. State, 496 So.2d 818 (Fla.1986) (providing that criminal defendant, adjudicated incompetent to stand trial, could seek certiorari review of order denying mo......
-
Abreu-Gutierrez v. James
...a petition for writ of certiorari in this court. Patton v. State, 712 So.2d 1206, 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); see also Vasquez v. State, 496 So.2d 818, 819-20 (Fla.1986). Instead, Abreu timely filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus the circuit court, and then appealed to this court when t......
-
Sanchez v. State
...[t]here is a substantial likelihood that . . . he will cause serious bodily harm to himself or others . . ."). See also Vasquez v. State, 496 So.2d 818, 820 (Fla.1986)("The test and treatment for incompetency to stand trial and for involuntary civil commitment are Second, we conclude the Ru......
-
Holly v. State
...review and the necessity to preserve the constitutional due process rights of an incompetent criminal defendant. See Vasquez v. State, 496 So.2d 818, 820 (Fla.1986). Further, we agree with Holly that "[a]n individual who has been adjudicated incompetent is presumed to remain incompetent unt......