JOEL BROWNING ROBINSON, 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 forgery convictions, holding that a civil adjudication of incompetency based on antisocial personality and poor judgment does not establish criminal insanity or trial incompetency.
A civil adjudication of incompetency for antisocial personality and poor judgment does not establish insanity as a criminal defense or incompetency to stand trial.
[1] A civil adjudication of incompetency based on antisocial personality, poor judgment, and poor impulse control does not establish insanity for purposes of a criminal defen…
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 intelligenceAppellant Robinson was convicted of making and uttering forgery. Shortly before the criminal proceedings, he was adjudicated civilly incompetent in gu…
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 Uttering A Forgery cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks reversal of judgments of conviction of making and uttering a forgery and sentences imposed thereon.
The primary points raised by appellant relate to his defense of insanity both at the time of the commission of the offenses charged and alleged insanity at the time of trial. Appellant also raises as error the refusal of the trial court to continue the trial so as to enable appellant to produce additional evidence of his alleged insanity.
Appellant places heavy reliance upon an adjudication of incompetency entered in connection with guardianship proceedings in the county judge’s court shortly before the criminal proceedings resulting in the instant convictions. In the civil incompetency proceeding, appellant was adjudicated incompetent by reason of an “anti-social personality” characterized by “extreme poor judgment; poor impulse control; chronic mismanagement of own funds and funds of others”. Such or similar findings do not establish insanity for the purposes of sustaining a defense in a criminal proceeding nor do they establish an impediment to requiring a person charged with the commission of a crime to stand trial. State ex rel. Deeb v. Fabisinski, 111 Fla. 454, 152 So. 207, reh. den. Ill Fla. 454, 156 So. 261; Crews v. State, 143 Fla. 263, 196 So. 590.
We have reviewed the remaining issues raised by appellant, including the venue question, and find that they are without substantial merit.
Accordingly, the judgments reviewed herein are affirmed.
JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State ex rel. George J. Deeb v. Fabisinski, 111 Fla. 454 (Fla. 1933)
- Wilburn R. Crews v. State, 143 Fla. 263 (Fla. 1940)