RANDALL MARK HARRINGER, 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.
Harringer appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to set aside an order adjudging him not guilty by reason of insanity. The court reversed, holding that the trial court violated his constitutional rights by failing to conduct a competency hearing before accepting a stipulated insanity plea without his knowing and intelligent waiver.
The court held that the adjudication order is appealable, that the record lacks evidence of Harringer's knowing and intelligent waiver of jury trial, and critically, that the court violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210 and Harringer's due process rights by proceeding against him without conducting a competency hearing when there were reasonable grounds to believe he was incompetent.
[1] An order adjudging a defendant not guilty by reason of insanity is an appealable order.
[2] A trial court must conduct a sufficient inquiry into a defendant's waiver of a jury trial, even if a written waiver is not strictly required.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“it must appear in the record that the trial court inquired into the defendant's waiver of a jury trial or conducted a sufficient inquiry”
Establishes the standard for waiving jury trial rights even without strict compliance with written waiver requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarringer was a patient at a mental health center when a criminal incident occurred. The state attorney and defendant's counsel stipulated to entry of…
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 Appealable Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the trial court’s denial of the motion to set aside Order Adjudging Defendant Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. We first hold that this is an appealable order. Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(b)(1)(C). See Thompson v. Crawford, 479 So. 2d 169, 176 n. 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).1
With respect to the merits we first find that the record is devoid of any showing that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial. While noncompliance with the technical requirement of a written waiver of jury trial pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.260 is permissible where there is no harm shown, see Tucker v. State, 559 So. 2d 218 (Fla.1990), it must appear in the record that the trial court inquired into the defendant’s waiver of a jury trial or conducted a sufficient inquiry. Tucker. More importantly, there is no evidence that appellant was competent to knowingly and intelligently waive his right to jury trial or to participate in his own defense. What the record reveals is that the state attorney and counsel for the appellant stipulated to the entry of a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. There is no showing that appellant ever consented to the stipulated plea.
However well intentioned that may have been at the time, good intentions do not override constitutional rights. It was a violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210 and appellant’s due process rights to proceed against him when there were reasonable grounds to believe he was incompetent. See Scott v. State, 420 So. 2d 595, 597 (Fla.1982).
From this record there were more than reasonable grounds to suggest appellant’s incompetency, including the fact that he was a patient at the mental health center when the criminal incident occurred. The mental health experts appointed by the court, whose orders were recited in the court’s order adjudicating appellant not guilty by reason of insanity, stated that “even at the best of times he is only marginally] competent.” There were sufficient grounds for the court to have required a hearing on appellant’s incompetence to proceed with the entry of a plea, and failure to do so invalidates the plea and commitment order.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings with directions to vacate stipulated plea.
HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and WARNER, JJ., concur. . The state suggests that either this matter should have been brought in direct appeal or under Rule 3.850. However, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140 provides for appeals from judgments adjudicating guilt, and Rule 3.850 permits review for a “prisoner in custody under sentence.” Since appellant was not adjudicated guilty nor was he sentenced, neither avenue of review has been available to him.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parker v. State, 636 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…the waiver of jury trial when it accepted the signed waiver. Parker now argues that, in light of Tucker v. State, 559 So. 2d 218 (Fla.1990) (indicating that oral inquiry in addition to a written waiver is the better practice) and Harringer v. State, 566 So. 2d 893, 894 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (holding that absent a written waiver, “it must appear in the record that the trial court inquired”), the trial court’s failure to make any inquiry to establish that the waiver was given freely and knowingly requires reversa…
-
Hunter v. State, 583 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…)(1)(C), which speaks of “orders entered after final judgment.” However, a review of case law construing this provision convinces us that the drafters contemplated only matters which normally would arise post-judgment. See, e.g., Harringer v. State, 566 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (motion to set aside adjudication of insanity); Thompson v. Crawford, 479 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (order vacating judgment of acquittal); Prado-Gonzalez v. State, 468 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (denial of motion for pos…
-
Delion Lamont Zeigler v. State, 647 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…equirement of a written waiver of a jury trial is permissible where there is no harm shown, it must appear in the record that the trial court inquired into the defendant’s waiver of a jury trial or conducted a sufficient inquiry. Harringer v. State, 566 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). See also Cirio v. State, 440 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). An appropriate oral colloquy will focus a defendant’s attention on the value of a jury trial and should make a defendant aware of the likely consequences of the waiver.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tucker v. State, 559 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 1990)
- Scott v. State, 420 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1982)
- Thompson v. Crawford, 479 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)