LAWRENCE ELWELL, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed convictions for corruption by threat and second direct criminal contempt, but reversed the first direct criminal contempt conviction because the trial court improperly tried and sentenced the defendant for contempt while a competency hearing was pending.
A defendant cannot be tried and convicted for direct criminal contempt while a competency hearing to determine fitness at the time of the original trial is pending.
[1] A defendant cannot be tried and convicted for direct criminal contempt while a competency hearing to determine fitness at the time of the original trial is pending.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“[A] hearing to determine whether a defendant was competent at the time he was tried generally cannot be held retroactively.”
Court citing Tingle v. State to support reversal of the first contempt conviction.
Lawrence Elwell was convicted of corruption by threat. After trial, the court ordered a competency hearing. During the hearing to schedule the compete…
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 Retroactive Competency Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Lawrence Elwell, was convicted of corruption by threat and two separate charges of direct criminal contempt. After the trial on the corruption by threat and the first direct criminal contempt conviction, a competency hearing was held and Elwell was found competent. We affirm without discussion the trial court’s finding that Elwell was competent *1293as well as his convictions and sentences for corruption by threat and the second direct criminal contempt. We reverse Elwell’s conviction and sentence on the first direct criminal contempt.
After Elwell’s trial at which he was found guilty of corruption by threat, the trial court recommended that a competency hearing be held pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210. At the hearing held to schedule the competency hearing, Elwell’s actions which gave rise to the first direct criminal contempt charge occurred. Elwell was immediately tried and sentenced for the first direct criminal contempt charge at the end of that hearing and while his competency hearing was pending. “[A] hearing to determine whether a defendant was competent at the time he was tried generally cannot be held retroactively.” Tingle v. State, 536 So.2d 202, 204 (Fla.1988). We therefore reverse Elwell’s first conviction and sentence for direct criminal contempt.
Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part.
GROSS, C.J., HAZOURI and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.