Walker v. State, No. 78-365
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | MOORE |
| Citation | 384 So.2d 730 |
| Parties | Leroy WALKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 78-365 |
| Decision Date | 11 June 1980 |
Page 730
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Page 731
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Ondina Felipe and Kenneth G. Spillias, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
MOORE, Judge.
The defendant appeals a conviction of battery upon a law enforcement officer. He contends, in part, that the trial court erred in denying his motion for appointment of psychiatrists to determine his competency to stand trial, which was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210. We affirm.
Approximately two weeks prior to trial, defense counsel filed a "motion for appointment of psychiatrists," which provided in pertinent part:
That Defendant's present demeanor and conduct casts grave doubt upon Defendant's mental condition which, together with a past conduct history, and which, together with the nature and quality of the act with which Defendant stands charged, would lead counsel to believe that Defendant is incompetent to plead, incompetent to stand trial and incompetent to aid and assist counsel in the preparation and presentation of his defense.
At the hearing on this motion, defense counsel did not present any testimony or evidence in support of the allegations made in the motion. Rather, counsel represented to the court that he had difficulty communicating with appellant, that appellant looked "vague and somewhat spacey" and that appellant seemed "strange and disorganized." The court did not feel this was sufficient basis for appointing a psychiatrist to examine appellant and, therefore, denied the motion.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(a) provides, in pertinent part:
(a) Mental Competence to Stand Trial or to Be Sentenced.
(1) A person accused of a crime who is incompetent to stand trial shall not be proceeded against while he is incompetent. A person is incompetent to stand trial within the meaning of this Rule if he does not have sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or if he has no rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.
(2) If before or during trial the Court, of its own motion, or upon motion of counsel for the defendant or for the State, has reasonable ground to believe that the defendant is not mentally competent to stand trial or if at the time of sentencing, the Court, of its own motion or upon motion of counsel for the defendant, has reasonable ground to believe that the defendant is mentally incompetent to be sentenced, the Court shall immediately fix a time for a hearing to determine the defendant's mental condition.
(4) For the purpose of any hearing held pursuant to subdivision (a), (b), or (c), the Court may appoint not more than three disinterested experts to examine the defendant and testify as to his or her mental condition at such hearing. If the Court does so, the Clerk shall notify the prosecuting attorney and counsel for the defendant of such appointment and shall give the names and addresses of the experts so appointed. Other evidence concerning the defendant's mental condition may be introduced at the hearing by either party. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, under this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Dugger, 87-8816-CIV.
...the competency of a defendant to stand trial if reasonable grounds exist to believe a defendant is incompetent. See Walker v. State, 384 So.2d 730 (Fla.App.1980). Similarly, under Fla.Stat. § 394.467(3)(a), a hearing is required to determine whether an incapacitated person is involuntarily ......
-
Tingle v. State, 70408
...ground to believe the defendant may be incompetent, not whether he is incompetent.' " 420 So.2d at 597 (quoting Walker v. State, 384 So.2d 730, 783 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)). See also Hill v. State, 473 So.2d 1253, 1256 (Fla.1985). Under the circumstances present in this case, there were reasona......
-
Tate v. State, 4D01-1306.
...the argument that the proper inquiry was whether the defendant may be incompetent, not whether he is incompetent. Walker v. State, 384 So.2d 730, 733 (Fla. 4th DCA We have considered Fuse v. State, 642 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), relied upon by the state. In Fuse, this court found Robin......
-
Finkelstein v. State, 90-2964
...536 So.2d 202 (Fla.1988); Scott v. State, 420 So.2d 595 (Fla.1982); Unruh v. State, 560 So.2d 266 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Walker v. State, 384 So.2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Also, a hearing to determine whether a defendant was competent at the time he was tried generally cannot be held retroac......