RAY CROSBY, 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.
Ray Crosby appeals his conviction for drug possession near a place of worship, arguing the trial court erred by failing to hold a competency hearing before trial. The Fifth District affirmed, holding that because Appellant did not affirmatively raise the competency issue at trial, no hearing was required under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The trial court was not required to conduct a competency hearing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210 because Appellant did not affirmatively raise the issue of competency below. Rule 3.216 permits defense counsel to screen for possible incompetency or insanity issues through expert evaluation, but unless the attorney actually raises the defense or incompetence issue before the court, no further proceeding regarding mental status is required.
[1] A trial court is not obligated to hold a competency hearing if the defendant does not affirmatively raise the issue of incompetency or insanity.
[2] A defendant's attorney may request an expert evaluation of competency or mental status to assist in defense preparation without triggering a mandatory court hearing on th…
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 rule allows an indigent defendant's 'attorney to screen possible incompetency or insanity cases and give a basis for determining whether issues of incompetence or insanity ought to be raised before the court.'”
Establishes the purpose of Rule 3.216 as a screening mechanism, not a mandatory competency proceeding
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCrosby was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a place of worship. Prior to trial, Crosby's coun…
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 Stand Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
Ray Crosby (“Appellant”) appeals from his conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a place of worship. Prior to trial, Appellant filed a motion requesting the trial court appoint expert, Dr. Patrick J. Ward, to evaluate Appellant’s competency to stand trial and his mental status at the time of the alleged offense. The trial court entered an order appointing Dr. Ward, which directed him to examine the Appellant “and report to the attorney for the Defendant to assist defense counsel in the preparation of his defense.” Based upon the fact that the trial court subsequently entered an order compensating the expert for his services, it appears that Dr. Ward conducted the evaluations and provided his report to defense counsel.
Appellant incorrectly argues that the trial court was obligated to hold a hearing and enter an order regarding Appellant’s competency prior to conducting the trial. Although neither the motion nor the order concerning the appointment of Dr. Ward refers to any specific rule or statute, it is obvious from the context of both the motion and order that the evaluation was done pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.216, rather than Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.210. The committee notes to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.216 state that the rule allows an indigent defendant’s “attorney to screen possible incompetency or insanity cases and give a basis for determining whether issues of incompetence or insanity ought to be raised before the court.” Rule 3.216(a) provides that the expert’s report is considered protected by attorney-client privilege. Thus, unless the defendant’s attorney decides to actually raise the defense of insanity or assert incompetence to proceed, no further proceeding regarding the defendant’s mental status is required by rule 3.216.1
Following entry of the pre-trial order compensating Dr. Ward, there was no further mention of, or proceeding regarding, Appellant’s competency or sanity. Because Appellant did not affirmatively raise the issue of his competency below, neither rule 3.210 nor Dougherty v. State, 149 So.3d 672 (Fla.2014), apply. Thus, the trial court was not required to conduct a rule 3.210 competency hearing before proceeding with trial and sentencing.
Finding no error in the sole issue raised by Appellant, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Vernson Edward Dortch, 317 So. 3d 1074 (Fla. 2021)…he attorney for the defendant,” id. Rule 3.216 then leaves it to defense counsel to raise the issue of competency with the trial court after receiving results from the confidential evaluation, if there is a basis to do so. Id.; see Crosby v. State, 175 So. 3d 382, 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (explaining that trial courts are not required to hold competency hearings after appointment of an expert pursuant to rule 3.216 and “unless the defendant’s attorney decides to actually raise the defense of insanity or asser…
Authorities Cited
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014)
- State v. Guyton, 445 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)