EDRICK DONALDSON, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Edrick Donaldson petitioned for certiorari review of a trial court order finding him competent to stand trial, claiming the court violated his due process rights by refusing to allow his expert to testify while only considering two court-appointed experts' opinions. The appellate court denied the petition, finding that while the trial court may have departed from essential requirements of law, Donaldson had an adequate remedy through direct appeal following conviction.
While the trial court may have departed from the essential requirements of law by refusing to allow additional evidence in violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(a), which expressly permits parties to introduce 'additional evidence,' certiorari review is not available because Donaldson has an adequate remedy through direct appeal following conviction.
[1] A trial court's refusal to allow a defendant to present additional evidence at a competency hearing, beyond the testimony of court-appointed experts, may constitute a dep…
[2] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(a) permits parties to introduce additional evidence at a competency hearing beyond that elicited from court-appointed experts.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 experts preparing the reports may be called by either party or the court, and additional evidence may be introduced by either party.”
The court quoted Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(a) to establish that parties have the right to present evidence beyond court-appointed experts at competency hearings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDonaldson was charged with a crime and underwent a competency hearing. The trial court appointed two experts pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Proc…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.210(B) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Edrick Donaldson petitions this court for certiorari review of an order finding him competent to proceed with respect to pending criminal charges. He complains that at his competency hearing, the trial court considered only the testimony of the two experts appointed by the court pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(b), and refused to allow defense counsel to present or even proffer the testimony of a third expert who had examined him.1 Donaldson argues that in so doing, the trial court deprived him of his due process right to a meaningful hearing concerning his present competency to proceed.
In order for an appellate court to review a nonfinal order by certiorari, the petitioner must demonstrate that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law, thereby causing irreparable injury that cannot be remedied on appeal following final judgment. See Belair v. Drew, 770 So. 2d 1164 (Fla.2000).
Here, we conclude that petitioner has made an adequate preliminary showing that the trial court’s actions constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law. In addressing the admissibility of evidence in a competency hearing, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(a) provides that “[t]he experts preparing the reports may be called by either party or the court, and additional evidence may be introduced by either party.” (Emphasis added).
We interpret the express language of this rule as permitting the parties to present evidence in addition to that elicited from the court-appointed experts, and in light of the rule, we have difficulty discerning a lawful basis for the trial court’s actions in this case.
However, we are unable to conclude that petitioner has demonstrated that the trial court’s alleged error will result in an injury that cannot be remedied on appeal following final judgment.
Petitioner relies on Vasquez v. State, 496 So. 2d 818 (Fla.1986), and Patton v. State, 712 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), to argue that certiorari is the proper vehicle to seek review of a pretrial order concerning a defendant’s competency to stand trial, but those cases involved situations in which the effect of the trial court’s order was to involuntarily commit the defendant on grounds of incompeteney to proceed. As the court observed in Vasquez, if certiorari review were not available in such a circumstance, an individual found to be incompetent to stand trial would have no appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence on that issue, and could effectively be subject to indefinite commitment. 496 So. 2d 819-820.
In contrast, the fact that plenary appeal will afford Donaldson an adequate remedy is borne out by the reported cases in which convictions have been reversed as a consequence of some error by the trial court in determining that the defendant was competent to proceed. See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 880 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Samson v. State, 853 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
Accordingly, we are constrained to deny the petition for writ of certiorari, without prejudice to Donaldson’s right to pursue this issue on direct appeal in the event of a conviction.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIO-RARI DENIED.
ERVIN, KAHN and BENTON, JJ., concur. . One of the court-appointed experts testified to his belief that Donaldson was presently competent to proceed, while the other opined that he was not. In refusing to hear the testimony of the third expert, the trial court stated that it would not allow "tiebreakers.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anderson v. State, 183 So. 3d 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…tion to withdraw is denied, competency can be reviewed to ensure the plea was voluntary and intelligent since this is one of the limited issues defendants can raise on appeal without specific reservation. Id. at 1012-13; see also Donaldson v. State, 895 So. 2d 1220, 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (denying defendant's petition "without prejudice to [his] right to pursue this issue on direct appeal in the event of a conviction”). . Defendants have thirty days after sentencing to withdraw a plea for the purposes of ap…
-
Tita v. State, 42 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…ot specify any facts, other than his con-clusory, non-expert opinion, for believing that defendant’s condition had changed or that he was not competent to proceed to trial. The petition is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See Donaldson v. State, 895 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). TAYLOR, DAMOORGIAN and CIKLIN, JJ., concur. . The transcript filed in this court shows that the trial court advised defense counsel at the May 28, 2010 hearing that the rule had been changed. Nevertheless, this petition quoted…
-
Fleming v. State, 347 So. 3d 382 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)…that several courts have held that a determination that a defendant is competent to proceed is reviewable by appeal, and therefore certiorari is unavailable. See Anderson, 183 So. 3d at 1148 (citing Fuller, 748 So. 2d at 293–94); Donaldson v. State, 895 So. 2d 1220, 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)). However, he argues that in Addison v. State, 327 So. 3d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021), the First District has recently found certiorari appropriate in competency proceedings, thereby receding from earlier case law finding cert…
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
- Belair v. Drew, 770 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 2000)
- Elizar Samson v. State, 853 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Cornell Jackson v. State, 880 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Vasquez v. State, 496 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1986)
- Patton v. State, 712 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)