JOHNNY ROSIER, 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.
Johnny Rosier appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, challenging the trial court's failure to conduct a competency hearing after ordering a mental competency evaluation. The court reversed the conviction, finding that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(b) required a competency hearing once the judge had reasonable grounds to question Rosier's mental competency.
Yes. The trial court erred by failing to conduct a competency hearing. Once the court recognized through the colloquy that Rosier's competency was in question and ordered a mental health evaluation, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(b) mandated that a competency hearing be held. The conviction and sentence must be reversed and the case remanded for a competency hearing and new trial if Rosier is found competent.
[1] A court must immediately enter an order setting a time for a hearing to determine a defendant's mental condition when there are reasonable grounds to believe the defendan…
[2] A trial court's order for a medical expert to evaluate a defendant's competency to proceed, following a colloquy where the defendant expresses concerns about their mental…
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“If, at any material stage of a criminal proceeding, the court of its own motion, or on motion of counsel for the defendant or for the state, has reasonable ground to believe that the defendant is not mentally competent to proceed, the court shall immediately enter its order setting a time for a hearing to determine the defendant's mental condition, which shall be held no later than 20 days after the date of the filing of the motion....”
States the mandatory requirement of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(b) that triggered the court's obligation to hold a competency hearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRosier was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. During a pretrial hearing, Rosier mentioned having suffered a left-side stroke. …
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.
Mr. Johnny Rosier appeals his judgment and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Mr. Rosier raises several issues on appeal; however, we address only one issue here. Mr. Rosier asserts that the trial judge erred by not conducting a competency hearing as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210 after a prior judge appointed a medical expert to evaluate Mr. Rosier’s competency to proceed to trial. The state properly concedes error. See Cochran v. State, 954 So.2d 1279, 1279 (Fla. 5th DCA *8572007). In relevant part, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(b) requires,
If, at any material stage of a criminal proceeding, the court of its own motion, or on motion of counsel for the defendant or for the state, has reasonable ground to believe that the defendant is not mentally competent to proceed, the court shall immediately enter its order setting a time for a hearing to determine the defendant’s mental condition, which shall be held no later than 20 days after the date of the filing of the motion....
Here, the original trial judge ordered a medical expert to evaluate Mr. Rosier’s competency to proceed to trial after conducting the following colloquy with Mr. Rosier:
THE COURT: You had a stroke, right?
MR. ROSIER: Left side, yes, sir.
THE COURT: Left side stroke. I think I need to send you to a doctor, all right? And I think that’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to send you to go see a doctor....
THE COURT: Go to the doctor. I’m not going to give you a new lawyer. You’re not going to get a better lawyer than that one over there. So I’m going to send you to a doctor. Ms. McMullen, would you submit me an order?
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Yes. The doctor that we requested was Doctor D[’E]errico.
THE COURT: Perfect. That will be so ordered and we’ll get the order. You go see this doctor and remember I’m the guy who let you out and trust me that I’m trying to follow the law. Okay, Mr. Rosier?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. But you’re sending me to a doctor, I don’t trust every — I done already had a stroke on my left side and sending me to a doctor that I’m not aware of—
THE COURT: The doctor’s not going to do anything to you. He’s going to—
MR. ROSIER: I don’t trust people.
THE COURT: Well, you don’t have to trust him. He’s not going to do anything to you. He’s not going give you any medicine or cut on you or anything like that. He’s going to tell me about you is what he’s going to do. That’s all he’s going to do. All right?
MR. ROSIER: To test my competency.
THE COURT: Exactly. That’s exactly right.
Based upon the colloquy, the court recognized that Mr. Rosier’s competency to proceed to trial was in question; therefore, a competency hearing was required under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(b). Accordingly, we reverse Mr. Rosier’s conviction and sentence, and we remand to the trial court to hold a competency hearing, and once Mr. Rosier is found competent to proceed, to conduct a new trial. See Cochran, 954 So.2d at 1279.
HAWKES, C.J., WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cochran v. State, 954 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Sonnenfeld v. Sonnenfeld, 954 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)