JOHNNY EDWARD GRAYDON, 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.
Johnny Edward Graydon appeals his conviction and sentence for kidnapping and sexual battery, challenging the trial court's appointment of only one expert to examine his competency to stand trial. The appellate court reversed, holding that Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure require a minimum of two experts when a trial court concludes there is reasonable ground to believe a defendant is incompetent.
The trial court committed reversible error by failing to appoint at least two experts to examine the defendant on the issue of competency to stand trial, in violation of the mandatory language of Rule 3.210 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error when it fails to appoint the mandatory number of experts to examine a defendant's competency to stand trial as required by Rule 3.2…
[2] Rule 3.210 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure mandates that a trial court appoint no more than three and no fewer than two experts to examine a defendant prior to…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Rule 3.210 states, inter alia, the trial court shall order the defendant to be examined by no more than three or fewer than two experts prior to the competency hearing.”
Establishes the mandatory requirement for minimum and maximum number of experts required by the rules of criminal procedure
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring trial, defense counsel moved to have Graydon examined regarding his mental competency to stand trial. The trial court agreed and appointed a si…
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
GUNTHER, Judge.
The defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for kidnapping and sexual battery. He maintains the trial court committed reversible error when it appointed only one expert to examine him with respect to the issue of his competency to stand trial. We agree.
During trial, counsel for defendant moved to have the defendant examined on the ground that he believed the defendant was not mentally competent to stand trial. Apparently, the trial court agreed with defense counsel because she appointed an expert to examine the defendant before the trial resumed the next day pursuant to Rule 3.210 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and also ordered that the expert furnish the court with a report concerning the issue of defendant’s competency pursu ant to Rule 3.211 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. As required by Rule 3.210, the trial court set the hearing to determine defendant’s mental condition for the next day at 10:30 a.m.
The next day the trial court commenced the 10:30 a.m. hearing with the following statement: “Please note pursuant to Court order and on the Court’s own motion, joined in with at that point also by defense counsel, we had Mr. Graydon examined to determine his competency. And each of you received a copy of the report, correct?”
This statement indicates the trial court considered itself to have made its own motion under Rule 3.210 and to have accordingly ordered that the defendant be examined by an expert to determine his competency. Thus, the record reveals that the trial court by its actions of ordering an examination and a report under Rules 3.210 and 3.211, had obviously concluded that there existed reasonable ground to believe the defendant was not mentally competent to stand trial. If after appropriate motion, a trial court concludes that there is reasonable ground to believe a defendant is not competent to stand trial, then the trial court must comply with Rules 3.210 and 3.211 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Kothman v. State, 442 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Rolle v. State, 493 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
Rule 3.210 states, inter alia, the trial court shall order the defendant to be examined by no more than three or fewer than two experts prior to the competency hearing. In the instant case, the court set a hearing date to determine the defendant’s mental condition but failed to follow the mandatory language of Rule 3.210 by not appointing two experts to examine the defendant on the issue of his competency to stand trial. The failure of the trial court to appoint two experts to examine the defendant constituted reversible error. See Rothman v. State, 442 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Therefore, the conviction is reversed, the sentence vacated, and the matter remanded for a new trial.
DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D'Oleo-Valdez v. State, 531 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 1988)…GRIMES, Justice. We have accepted jurisdiction to review D’Oleo-Valdez v. State, 516 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), because of apparent conflict with Graydon v. State, 502 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. D’Oleo-Valdez was charged with trafficking in cocaine. The court appointed a psychiatrist to examine his mental competency to stand trial. Following the examination, the psychiatrist reported that…
-
D'Oleo-Valdez v. State, 516 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…01 (Fla.1978); De La Cova v. State, 355 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 831 (Fla.1978); Page v. State, 412 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); 3 Fla.Jur.2d Appellate Review §§ 293, 300-301 (1978). We do not read Graydon v. State, 502 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), to hold otherwise. If we are wrong about this, we think Graydon is wrong. There is no other error. Affirmed. . The appointed psychiatrist found Valdez fully competent. No point is made of the trial court’s ensuing determi…
Authorities Cited
- Kothman v. State, 442 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Margolis v. City Nat'l Bank OF Fla., 493 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Rolle v. State, 493 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)