JAMES HARRELL, 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.
James Harrell was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and sentenced to five years imprisonment. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court denied his pretrial motion for a mental examination to determine competency to stand trial without conducting a hearing, in violation of Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.210.
The trial court erred by denying the motion for mental examination without a hearing. Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.210(a) requires that when a defendant certified as sane by a mental institution is thereafter questioned as to competency, a judicial hearing must be conducted to determine the legal question of whether the accused is mentally competent to stand trial, separate from the doctors' medical opinions.
[1] A defendant committed to an institution as insane is entitled to a hearing to determine sanity once the institution's proper officer opines the defendant is sane.
[2] The determination of whether an accused is mentally competent to stand trial is a legal question that must be judicially decided after medical opinions on competency are…
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“If, after a defendant ha´' been committed to an institution as insane, the proper officer of such institution is of the opinion that the defendant is sane, the court shall fix a time for a hearing to determine whether the defendant is sane.”
Establishes the mandatory requirement for a judicial hearing on competency to stand trial after hospital certification of sanity
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarrell was charged on July 31, 1972. On October 25, 1972, he moved for mental examination under Rule 3.210. On November 30, 1972, an order found him …
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 Sanity Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
[*586] PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted on charges of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, to wit, grand larceny, and was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years.
Several points are urged for reversal by appellant, but we need only consider the question of whether appellant was entitled to a sanity hearing to determine whether he could stand trial. The charges against appellant were filed by information on July 31, 1972. On October 25, 1972, he moved for a mental examination pursuant to Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.210, 33 F. S.A.; and on November 30, 1972, an order was entered following such examination declaring appellant to be mentally incompetent and unable to assist counsel. Accordingly, appellant was committed to the State Hospital at Chattahoochee.
On January 31, 1973, the State Hospital staff rendered its report finding that appellant was no longer insane and finding further that he could now assist counsel in his defense against the pending charges.
The charges were set for trial on April 16, 1973, but before the trial commenced counsel made a new motion for a mental examination, asserting again that appellant was not then, some two and one-half months after he had been certified sane by the hospifal staff, mentally competent to stand trial. This motion was denied without hearing and the case went to trial and judgment.
Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.-210(a) provides in material part:
“If, after a defendant haá’ been committed to an institution as insane, the proper officer of such institution is of the opinion that the defendant is sane, the court shall fix a time for a hearing to determine whether the defendant is sane. The hearing shall be conducted in the same manner as the original hearing to determine the defendant’s sanity. If found sane, the trial shall proceed; if found insane, he shall be recommitted as hereinabove set forth.”
It seems clear from the language of the rule in question that a new hearing is contemplated after a person has been certified able to stand trial by the mental institution. As held by this court in Butler v. State, 261 So. 2d 508, the determination of whether an accused is mentally competent to stand trial is a legal question which must be judicially decided after the doctors have rendered their medical opinion as to the accused’s competency to stand trial.
Accordingly, this cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in and for Suwannee County with directions to follow the same directions outlined by the Supreme Court of Florida in Fowler v. State, Fla., 255 So. 2d 513.
SPECTOR, Acting Chief Judge, Mc-CORD and BOYER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hayward Lane v. State, 388 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 1980)…s the need for a competency hearing is some type of irrational behavior or evidence of mental illness that would raise a doubt as to the defendant’s present competence. See also Bell v. State, 318 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), and Harrell v. State, 296 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). We are not unmindful of the problem raised by the trial court and the state that a defendant could directly cause his incompetency by intentionally failing to take the proper medication for his mental condition. We answered the…
-
Bell v. State, 318 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…is sanity had not been “legally” determined in accordance with the requirements of Rule 3.210(a)(3) RCrP. See Butler v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1972, 261 So. 2d 508; Parks v. State, Fla.App. 4th 1974, 290 So. 2d 562; Harrell v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1974, 296 So. 2d 585. Thereupon, the trial judge continued the trial and set a date for a hearing on Bell’s mental condition in compliance with the rule, which hearing was held on November 19, 1973. At the hearing on September 24, 1973, defense counsel stated that it w…
Authorities Cited
- Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1971)
- Grantham v. Louie L. Wainwright, 261 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Butler v. State, 261 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)