PHYLLIS GEATHERS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the conviction but allowed the appellant to file a motion for post-conviction relief.
Appellant was convicted of aggravated battery and appealed, claiming actual incompetence to stand trial. Appellate counsel attempted to introduce new …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Competency To Stand Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of a judgment of conviction of aggravated battery. The basis for the appeal is the contention that appellant was actually incompetent to stand trial, although appellant’s appointed trial counsel did not move for a competency hearing or in any way suggest that appellant was incompetent to stand trial. Further, the record reveals no reasonable grounds for a belief that appellant was incompetent to stand trial.
Appellate counsel have sought to introduce before this court evidence of appellant’s actual incompetence which was not part of the record below and therefore cannot be considered on appeal. The proper course for appellant to follow in order to obtain consideration of this additional evidence is to file with the lower court a motion for post-conviction relief. The judgment of conviction is affirmed without prejudice to the appellant to file a motion pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
McCORD and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Associate Judge (Ret.), concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Four Quarters Habitat, Inc. v. Miller, 405 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…earch. Although Dr. Mims testified that the claimant should seek only light work, those directions did not excuse the claimant from the rule that he was obliged to search for work within his physical limitations. See T.G. Lee Foods, Inc. v. Walker, 395 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Stewart-Decatur Security v. Kropp, supra. Since there was no such search, the award is therefore reversed and the case is remanded with directions that an award of TTD be entered consistent with the time frame stipulated by the…
-
Essie Woods v. Greater Naples Care Ctr. & R. P. Hewitt & Assocs., 406 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…partial disability benefits. However, we caution that “there is no automatic relationship between temporary total disability and the achievement of maximum medical improvement. The key is capacity to return to work.” T. G. Lee Foods, Inc. v. Walker, 395 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Accordingly, the deputy’s finding of MMI on November 21,1979, is reversed and the case is remanded with directions for August 26, 1980 to be entered as the correct date of MMI, and for a determination as to whether the claimant…
-
City OF Melbourne & Old Dominion Ins. Co. v. Dannie M. Haddock & Rockwood Ins. Co., 533 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…ts for longer than the definition of the benefit would envision. As temporary total disability has been defined as “a healing period during which the claimant is totally disabled and unable to work due to his injury,” T.G. Lee Foods, Inc. v. Walker, 395 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), and the instant wording is consistent with that definition, we affirm the award as worded.…