CARLYLE HATCHELL, 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.
Carlyle Hatchell was convicted of second-degree murder by jury verdict. On appeal, he argued that the trial court failed to comply with procedural requirements for holding a sanity hearing despite receiving a psychiatric report, and that the evidence was insufficient to prove the element of "depraved mind." The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that Hatchell waived the sanity hearing requirement by failing to object and proceeding to trial.
The court held that Hatchell waived the requirement for a formal sanity hearing and explicit ruling by proceeding to trial without objection and without raising the issue until appeal. Additionally, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty for second-degree murder.
[1] A defendant waives the requirement of a sanity hearing and a specific court ruling on sanity by proceeding to trial without objection or further request after a psychiatr…
[2] A defendant's failure to raise the issue of a lack of a sanity hearing in a motion for new trial or assignments of error, and raising it for the first time on appeal, con…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In my opinion, the patient at the present time is probably mentally competent to understand the charges facing him and to adequately assist counsel in his own defense.”
The psychiatric expert's conclusion that Hatchell was mentally competent, which the court relied upon in finding waiver of the sanity hearing requirement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter being charged with second-degree murder, Hatchell's counsel filed a motion suggesting insanity and requesting appointment of experts. A psychiat…
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 Second Degree Murder Elements cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
Appellant was charged by information with second degree murder, was tried by jury, found guilty, was adjudged guilty by the court and sentenced. Appellant was represented throughout the trial proceedings and the initial stages of the appeal by private counsel. He has subsequently been represented on this appeal by the public defender. After the filing of the information, appellant’s counsel made a “Motion Suggesting Insanity” in which he requested that the court appoint experts to examine the defendant and fix a time for hearing to determine defendant’s present mental condition. The court then entered an order appointing a psychiatrist to examine appellant and stated in the order that it appeared there were reasonable grounds to believe that appellant was unable to prepare his defense or to stand trial in the case. The psychiatrist subsequently filed a detailed report of his examination concluding:
“In my opinion, the patient at the present time is probably mentally competent to understand the charges facing him and to adequately assist counsel in his own defense. The patient’s amnesic reporting for the alleged event is probably an accurate representation as such amnesias are common in individuals given to alcohol problems. In my opinion he was mentally competent at the time of the alleged offense, though it is possible that he misread the intentions of the other individual or suffered from some diminished coordination which would compromise his control over a weapon. It is my opinion that he understood the nature, quality and wrongfulness of his acts at that time.”
It does not appear that a sanity hearing was thereafter held or that the trial judge made an affirmative ruling as to appellant’s sanity, or that appellant made any further motion for hearing or for ruling by the court on the proposition. He and his counsel were apparently satisfied with the psychiatric report and his competency to stand trial because the next thing that occurred was a plea of guilty by appellant to the lesser included offense of manslaughter with a negotiated sentence. Subsequently, however, appellant moved to withdraw his guilty plea and the court granted same. Appellant was thereafter tried by jury and found guilty of murder in the second degree. Rule 3.210(a)(1) and (2) states as follows:
“(1) If before or during trial the court, of its own motion, or upon motion of counsel for the defendant, has reasonable ground to believe that the defendant is insane, the court shall immediately fix a time for a hearing to determine the defendant’s mental condition. The defendant shall designate his attorney to serve as his representative under Fla.Stat. § 394.459(11), F.S.A., in the event the defendant is found mentally incompetent. The court may appoint not exceeding three disinterested qualified experts to examine the defendant and to testify at the hearing as to his mental condition. Other evidence regarding the defendant’s mental condition may be introduced at the hearing by either party.
(2) If the court decides that the defendant is sane, it shall proceed to trial.”
It is our view that appellant waived the foregoing requirements of the Rule as to hearing and a specific ruling by the court on his sanity. He went to trial without making any objection or making any further request for a sanity hearing. The record shows that appellant’s counsel announced to the court at the outset of the trial that he was ready for trial. The record further shows that appellant did not plead “not guilty by reason of insanity”; that he did not raise any issue as to the lack of sanity hearing in either his motion for new trial or in his' assignments of error. Such question was raised for the first time in appellant’s brief on appeal. In addition, the transcript of the trial gives every indication that appellant was fully capable of understanding the charges against him and assisting his counsel in his defense.
In addition to the insanity issue, appellant contends that the trial court erred in not granting his motion for a judgment of acquittal; that the state failed to demonstrate an essential element of the crime of second degree murder, to wit: depraved mind. We have examined the record and find it sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.
Affirmed.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reynolds v. State, 177 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…ng and by continuing with the plea hearing despite his counsel still having concerns with Appellant’s competency. In support of this position, the State relies primarily on Thomas v. State, 894 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), and Hatchett v. State, 328 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). We find those cases distinguishable. In Thomas, defense counsel questioned the defendant’s competency, and the trial court appointed two experts and scheduled a hearing on the issue. See 894 So. 2d at 1001. At a later hearing,…
-
Alexander v. State, 380 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…ion of incompetency and its obligation to rebut the same, but it says that the appellant waived the necessity for a hearing, citing Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513 (Fla.1971); Bolius v. State, 319 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1975) and Hatchell v. State, 328 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). It is noted however, that in all three cases the defendant had never been adjudicated incompetent, so there was no continuing presumption of incompetency. Rather, there was a presumption that he was competent until proven otherw…
-
Jones v. State, 378 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…ioning to the jury . .” In the absence of a clearer record, we can find no error in the restrictions imposed. There was no error in the court’s failure to make a written finding of appellant’s competency, that having been waived, Hatchell v. State, 328 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. den., 339 So. 2d 1169; or in excluding defendant’s proffered expert psychiatric testimony not tending to establish the defendant’s insanity. Tremain v. State, 336 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), cert. den., 348 So. 2d 954…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence