LEROY JAMES GREEN, 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.
Leroy James Green appeals his convictions for aggravated battery, sexual battery, and false imprisonment, challenging whether he was properly found competent to stand trial after a prior adjudication of incompetency. The appellate court upheld the trial court's competency determination and affirmed his convictions.
The court held that the trial court did not err in determining Green's competency. Although Rule 3.210(b) requires no fewer than two experts, failure to appoint multiple experts is not fundamental error, and Green's counsel's acquiescence to the single expert and lack of objection precluded any error.
[1] A defendant's failure to object to the appointment of a single expert for a competency evaluation waives the right to challenge the procedure on appeal, even if the rule…
[2] A trial court may proceed to determine a defendant's competency to stand trial based on a single expert's report when defense counsel acquiesces to the procedure.
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“Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(b) requires no fewer than two experts to examine an accused to report on the competency issue, failure to do so is not fundamental error.”
Establishes the procedural rule and the court's holding that deviation from it does not constitute reversible error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGreen was declared incompetent to stand trial on November 8, 1988, and committed to the Florida State Hospital. He was discharged and released on Octo…
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 Waiver Of Procedural Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant, Leory James Green, challenges the judgments and sentences imposed upon him for aggravated battery, sexual battery and false imprisonment.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in bringing him to trial without a hearing and finding based upon substantial, competent evidence that appellant was competent to stand trial after having been previously adjudged not competent to stand trial. We do not agree with appellant that he was improperly brought to trial without the necessary procedures and findings to declare him to be competent for trial.
The essential facts demonstrate that after a competency hearing on November 8,1988, appellant was declared incompetent to stand trial on the charges against him and committed to HRS. Appellant was confined in the Florida State Hospital until October 26, 1989, when he was discharged from the hospital and released for return to the judicial system. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(c)(6) requires the court to hold a hearing on the defendant’s competency within thirty days of such an action. The trial court appointed a single expert to examine appellant as to his competency and scheduled a hearing on that issue. While Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(b) requires no fewer than two experts to examine an accused to report on the competency issue, failure to do so is not funda mental error. D’Oleo-Valdez v. State, 531 So. 2d 1347 (Fla.1988).
Appellant was present with his counsel at the hearing on December 27, 1989, to determine his competency. No objection was raised in regard to the appointment of one expert rather than the two or three directed by Rule 3.210(b). Rather than interposing any objection to the procedure, it is clear from the transcript of the hearing that appellant acquiesced in the appointment of the single expert and in determining his competency at the hearing based upon the expert’s written report. Such a procedure was sanctioned by our supreme court in Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513, 515 (Fla.1971). At the competency hearing, appellant’s counsel informed the trial judge that counsel had a report from the single appointed expert which indicated appellant was competent to stand trial. At that point in the proceedings, the trial judge announced: “It looks like we are ready to proceed on to trial.” Defense counsel responded: “Yes, sir.”
Finding no error in regard to the determination of appellant’s competency to stand trial and finding no error in regard to appellant’s second issue regarding the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal, we affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences.
HALL and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mairena v. State, 6 So. 3d 80 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…fundamental error, see D’Oleo-Valdez v. State, 531 So. 2d 1347, 1348 (Fla.1988), and the error was invited by Mairena, he has not demonstrated that the trial court erred in failing to appoint at least two experts to evaluate him. See Green v. State, 598 So. 2d 313, 313-14 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (holding that defendant acquiesced in appointment of single competency expert where, rather than object to appointment of only one expert, defense counsel informed trial judge that counsel had report from single appointed…
-
Clowers v. State, 31 So. 3d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…mental health expert before the final proceeding. See Mairena v. State, 6 So. 3d 80, 86 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (holding failure to appoint two experts not preserved for review where defense counsel invited error by requesting only one); Green v. State, 598 So. 2d 313, 313-14 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (holding defendant acquiesced in appointment of single competency expert where, rather than object to appointment of only one, defense counsel informed trial judge counsel had report from single appointed expert indicating…
-
Martinez v. State, 712 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…of Criminal Procedure 3.211. It is the trial court’s function to resolve factual conflicts, and there was competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s determination. See Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513, 514 (Fla.1971); Green v. State, 598 So. 2d 313, 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). However, we do find error in the determination of competency which the trial court was called upon to make during the trial. Martinez’s trial began on May 13, 1996. On the second day of trial, just before opening arguments…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1971)
- D'Oleo-Valdez v. State, 531 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 1988)