STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER/CROSS-RESPONDENT,
v.
W.S.L., A CHILD, RESPONDENT/CROSS-PETITIONER
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 Florida Supreme Court held that a defendant can be convicted and sentenced for both felony murder and the underlying felony, rejecting the lower court's determination that the underlying felony is a necessarily lesser included offense. The Court also addressed the proper procedure for determining competency to stand trial, finding such hearings must be conducted contemporaneously with trial rather than retroactively.
A defendant can be convicted of and sentenced for both felony murder and the underlying felony, as the underlying felony is not a necessarily lesser included offense of felony murder. A hearing to determine competency to stand trial must be conducted contemporaneously with trial and cannot be determined retroactively, as this would fail to adequately protect due process rights.
[1] A defendant may be convicted of and sentenced for both felony murder and the underlying felony.
[2] A hearing to determine competency to stand trial cannot be held retroactively.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When a defendant is guilty of felony murder, can he be convicted of, although not sentenced for, the underlying felony?”
The certified question of great public importance that the Court answered in the affirmative.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceW.S.L., a child, was charged with felony murder and the underlying felony of sexual battery. The trial court adjudicated him guilty on both counts. Th…
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 Retroactive Competency Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
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 certi fied 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 remand with directions that the state may proceed with a new trial if the trial court determines that respondent is competent to stand trial.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. OVERTON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.
ADKINS, J., dissents.
OVERTON, Justice,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I dissent from the part of this opinion that reaffirms our decision in State v. Enmund for the reasons expressed in my dissent in that case. I concur with the majority’s findings that a hearing must be held to determine respondent’s competency to stand trial and that a new trial may be held if respondent is found to be competent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roberts v. State, 510 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1987)…erson v. State, 128 So. 2d 132, 137 (Fla.1961) (“It is a homicide committed during the perpetration of a felony, if 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 enforcement officer, Roberts approached what appeared to be either a lone female or a couple in a “lover's la…
-
Holmes v. State, 494 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…etency at the time of the original trial; the difficulty of retrospectively determining an accused’s competence 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 may proceed with the course outlined in Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 92 S.Ct. 1845, 32 L.Ed.2d 435 (1972).…
-
Perez v. Dept. of Corrections, 227 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (S.D. Fla. 2002)…., Tucker v. State, 720 So.2d 209 (Fla.1998) (accepting jurisdiction on a issue certified of great public 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) (same). d. Counsel Failed to Pursue the Available Avenues The Court finds that Rodriguez’s ineffectiveness began with his inexplicable failure to mention in his Perez briefs to the Third District Court of Appeal that Gray…
Authorities Cited
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1966)
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1975)
- State v. Carney, 476 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Enmund, 476 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1985)
- Hill v. State, 473 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1985)
- W.S.L. v. State, 470 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)