5D02-2847 Chester Harris v. State

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D02-2847

Case Date: 01/26/2004

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2004 CHESTER HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed January 30, 2004 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Lawrence R. Kirkwood, Judge. James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Susan A. Fagan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Timothy D. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PALMER, J. Chester Harris appeals his judgments and sentences which were entered by the trial court after a jury found Harris guilty of committing the crimes of battery, resisting an officer with violence, and criminal mischief. Harris challenges his judgments and sentences arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a competency hearing or issue an order finding him competent to stand trial. We agree and therefore reverse. Rule 3.210(b) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure sets forth the procedure which the trial court must follow when the issue of a defendant's competency is raised: Case No. 5D02-2847

2

Rule 3.210 Incompetence to Proceed: Procedure for Raising the Issue *** (b) Motion for Examination. If, at any material stage of a criminal proceeding, the court of its own motion, or on motion of counsel for the defendant or for the state, has reasonable ground to believe that the defendant is not mentally competent to proceed, the court shall immediately enter its order setting a time for a hearing to determine the defendant's mental condition, which shall be held no later than 20 days after the date of the filing of the motion, and shall order the defendant to be examined by no more than 3, nor fewer than 2, experts prior to the date of the hearing. Attorneys for the state and the defendant may be present at the examination. Fla. R. Crim. P. Rule 3.210(b)(emphasis added). Once the issue of a defendant's competency to stand trial is raised, the question for the trial court to consider is whether there is reasonable ground to believe the defendant may be incompetent, not whether he is incompetent. Brockman v. State, 852 So.2d 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). In Hunter v. State, 660 So.2d 244 (Fla. 1995), our Supreme Court set forth the following test for determining whether a defendant is competent to stand trial: The test for whether a defendant is competent to stand trial is whether "he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding

Download 5D02-2847 Chester Harris v. State.pdf