WILLIAM MOODY, 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.
The court held that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in sentencing the appellant in absentia after finding him competent based on her observations.
Appellant was convicted of several felonies and faced sentencing as an habitual offender. He moved for a competency evaluation, but the appointed doct…
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 Be Sentenced cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge.
In this appeal from a judgment of conviction on charges of aggravated stalking, arson, burglary, grand theft and trespass, and a sentence thereon as an habitual offender, appellant contends that the trial court erred in not properly conducting a hearing on appellant’s competency prior to sentencing. On appellant’s motion, the court appointed two doctors to examine appellant. One doctor had to hit the panic button when appellant refused to let him leave the holding cell where an interview was unsuccessfully attempted, and the other doctor could not perform the examination because appellant refused a formal interview even though his attorney was present. Although unable to perform a complete psychiatric examination, the last mentioned doctor filed a report indicating appellant appeared to be fairly well organized, argued with his attorney but not in a threatening manner to either the attorney or the doctor, and showed no signs of hallucinations or delusional thought.
The trial court proceeded to sentencing, stating on the record that the defendant had been manipulating the court from the very beginning of the proceedings; that he was very bright and a “con man”; that she had observed him through all his court appearances and had watched him put on “quite a show”; that he had stalled the trial and was now attempting to stall the sentencing. She concluded that based on her own observations, appellant had voluntarily absented himself from the sentencing hearing and he was competent to be sentenced.
We find no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in sentencing appellant in absentia. The court followed the requirements of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.210 and 3.211, and cannot be faulted for refusing to permit the appellant to thwart or impede the judicial process through his own misconduct. See Capuzzo v. State, 596 So. 2d 438 (Fla.1992).
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. LaBRON, 24 So. 3d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…camera hearing, in which the judge would determine whether the Cl’s testimony would assist the defense of entrapment. This kind of non-final order is renewable by certiorari, as it presents the possibility of irreparable harm. E.g., State v. Ayala, 713 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); State v. Roberts, 686 So. 2d 722, 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The state has a limited privilege to withhold the Cl’s identity. Miller v. State, 729 So. 2d 417, 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); State v. Zamora, 534 So. 2d 864, 867 (Fla. 3d D…
-
Thomas v. State, 28 So. 3d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…d helpful. See State v. Zamora, 534 So. 2d at 868. The second component concentrates on general due process considerations and is not confined to a defense raised by the defendant. Miller, 729 So. 2d at 419. Id.See also id. (citing State v. Ayala, 713 So. 2d 1050, 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); (Wilson v. State, 13 So. 3d 83, 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)); Featherstone v. State, 440 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (utilizing analysis in violation of probation case). “As a general rule, an informant’s identity need not be…
-
State v. Leonicio Rivas and Juan Rodriguez-Abrea, 25 So. 3d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…ted each Defendant’s motion to disclose the Cl, without an in camera hearing, and the State seeks certiorari relief. This kind of non-final order is reviewable by certiorari, as it presents the possibility of irreparable harm. E.g., State v. Ayala, 713 So. 2d 1050, 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); State v. Roberts, 686 So. 2d 722, 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The State has a limited privilege to withhold the Cl’s identity. Miller v. State, 729 So. 2d 417, 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); State v. Zamora, 534 So. 2d 864, 867 (Fla…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Capuzzo v. State, 596 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 1992)