STEPHEN BROWN, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Mason v. State, 489 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1986)
  …t Court of Appeal’s observation in State v. Williams, 447 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), that no per se rule exists in Florida forbidding a nunc pro tunc competency determination regardless of the surrounding circumstances. See also Brown v. State, 449 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (remanding for nunc pro tunc evaluation when original experts available to testify). Should the trial court find, for whatever reason, that an evaluation of Mason’s competency at the time of the original trial cannot be conducted…
• Monte v. State, 51 So. 3d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
  …rcumstances. (citations omitted).5 The fact that the experts who evaluated Monte and the records from their evaluations may still be available, allows this court to remand for a retroactive competency hearing and not a new trial. See Brown v. State, 449 So. 2d 417, 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (remanding for nunc pro tunc evaluation when original experts were available to testify). If, however, those experts and their full and complete records are not available or appellant’s competency cannot be sufficiently estab…
• The State of Fiorida, 466 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
  …lthough this procedure is available in certain limited circumstances, see Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513 (Fla.1971) (in addition to psychiatric reports establishing grounds to believe defendant insane, a hearing had been requested); Brown v. State, 449 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (remanded upon the authority of State v. Williams, 447 So. 2d 356. (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); State v. Williams, 447 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (no evidence in record suggesting incompetency at time of trial), we do not believe that…

Authorities Cited

• State v. Williams, 447 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)