STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ERIC JAMES COOKS, 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.
The State appealed a trial court's determination that the defendant was incompetent to stand trial due to permanent organic brain damage. The appellate court affirmed, holding that while amnesia alone does not establish incompetency, the evidence here—including severe cognitive damage from a gunshot wound to the brain—supported the incompetency finding.
The court affirmed the incompetency finding, holding that while amnesia alone does not mandate incompetency, the evidence of severe cognitive damage to the defendant's brain provided sufficient competent evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that the defendant lacked the present ability to consult with counsel with reasonable rational understanding and lacked rational and factual understanding of proceedings.
[1] Amnesia regarding the events of a crime does not, in itself, mandate a finding of legal incompetence to stand trial.
[2] A defendant is competent to stand trial if they possess the present ability to consult with their attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and have a r…
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“The State correctly contends that the Defendant's amnesia regarding the events of the crime does not mandate that he be found legally incompetent to stand trial.”
Establishes that amnesia alone is insufficient to establish incompetency, citing controlling precedent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEric James Cooks suffered a gunshot wound to the brain at the time of the alleged offense, resulting in amnesia and severe damage to his cognitive fun…
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 Factual Understanding of Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
GOSHORN, Judge.
The State appeals the order determining that the Defendant is not competent to proceed to trial “by reason of permanent organic brain damage suffered at the time of the offense alleged.” The State correctly contends that the Defendant’s amnesia regarding the events of the crime does not mandate that he be found legally incompetent to stand trial. See Cortes-Rivas v. State, 623 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Jones v. State, 465 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Robbins v. State, 312 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 327 So. 2d 34 (Fla.1976); United States v. Mota, 598 F. 2d 995 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1084, 100 S.Ct. 1042, 62 L.Ed.2d 770 (1980).
However, that does not end our inquiry. To be competent, a defendant must have the present ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and have a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960); Pridgen v. State, 531 So. 2d 951 (Fla.1988).
Sub judice, two experts examined the Defendant and reached contrary conclusions regarding the Defendant’s competency. The expert who concluded that the Defendant was incompetent to proceed cited not only the fact of the Defendant’s amnesia stemming from the gunshot wound to the Defendant’s brain, but also the severe damage to the Defendant’s cognitive functioning.1 This expert supported his conclusion with reference to specific observations he made during his examination of the Defendant. In short, there was sufficient competent evidence from which the trial court could properly conclude that the Defendant was not competent to proceed.
We note that the State mischaracterizes the trial court’s finding as one of permanent incompetency. To the contrary, the trial court ordered the Defendant to be reevaluated every three months for one year, at which time the matter of competency could be readdressed. This procedure, in complete accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(d), protects the State’s interest in prosecuting the Defendant in the event, albeit extremely unlikely in this ease, that the Defendant regains competency. After five years of reevaluations, the charges against the Defendant must be dismissed “without prejudice to the state to refile the charges should the defendant be declared competent to proceed in the future.” See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.213(a).
Accordingly, there is nothing “permanent” about the court’s finding of incompetency.
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . "Cognition” is defined as "Awareness with perception, reasoning, judgment, intuition, and memory; the mental process by which knowledge is acquired.” Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 379 (26th ed. 1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kent v. State, 702 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960); Hunter v. State, 660 So. 2d 244 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 946, 133 L.Ed.2d 871 (1996); Scott v. State, 420 So. 2d 595 (Fla.1982); Calloway v. State, 651 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); State v. Cooks, 642 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). In this case, defense counsel merely argued that Kent did not seem to understand the seriousness of the penalties that he was facing, and that he did not comprehend the strength of the state’s case against him. Further, he main…
-
Ozbourn v. State, 651 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…lorida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2) for appeals of judgments or sentences have, we are informed, by now expired. Even if aspects of this interlocutory order had been reviewable during the pen-dency of the prosecution, see State v. Cooks, 642 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (state appeal); Cuervo v. State, 603 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Hall v. Haddock, 573 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (mandamus), the appeal of the decision to declare appellant incompetent to stand trial is now moot. According…
-
Kiley v. State, 860 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…Mauldin v. State, 382 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), we conclude that “amnesia, in and of itself, does not, per se, render [defendant] incapable of standing trial or of receiving a fair trial.” 382 So. 2d at 846. In the same vein is State v. Cooks, 642 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 5th [*510] DCA 1994), which held that defendant’s amnesia regarding events of crime did not mandate that he be found legally incompetent to stand trial. If amnesia does not automatically equal incompetency to stand trial, then defendant would…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1960)
- United States v. Evelio Mota and Juan Flores, 598 F.2d 995 (5th Cir. 1979)
- Mayfield v. Mohn, 444 U.S. 1084 (U.S. 1980)
- Morel v. United States, 444 U.S. 1084 (U.S. 1980)
- C. G. R. Med. Corp. v. Share, 312 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Pridgen v. State, 531 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1988)
- Jones v. State, 465 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Storman v. State, 623 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Cortes-Rivas v. State, 623 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)