HANSEL TYRONE CLARKE, PETITIONER,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Competency To Stand Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
We deny the petition for certiorari under review because we find that the trial court properly found that before the accused can be considered for the remedies provided under Rule 3.213(b) Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, said accused must demonstrate 5 consecutive uninterrupted years of incompetency to stand trial. As the record herein reflects that the defendant’s periods of incompetency had been broken by periods of competency the trial court was correct in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Until such time as a trial court determines that the defendant has been incompetent for 5 consecutive years it does not reach the second determination of the rule “that there is no substantial probability that the defendant will become mentally competent to stand trial in the foreseeable future”.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 696 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…a bulge in his waistband might well be armed. There are cases which hold that a search beneath clothing is unauthorized unless a patdown of outer clothing is first conducted which indicates the presence of a concealed weapon. See Jamison v. State, 455 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). The rationale is that a patdown might reveal that a bulge is soft and could not be a weapon. For that reason, it has been held in some situations that an officer who directly seizes a weapon from beneath a defendant’s clothing w…
-
Downing v. State, 617 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…[*866] petent; thus, there has not been a continuous five-year period that the petitioner remained incompetent, and this petitioner was not, therefore, entitled to relief pursuant to rule 3.213. This argument is based on language in Clarke v. State, 455 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), which stated that to be eligible for the remedies in rule 3.213, the accused must demonstrate five consecutive uninterrupted years of incompetency to stand trial. Based upon this argument, the trial court dismissed the request fo…
-
G.M. v. State, 172 So. 3d 963 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…ted to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons. It may not extend beyond a pat-down of the suspect’s outer clothing unless the pat-down or other circumstances lead the officer to believe that the suspect has a weapon.” Jamison v. State, 455 So. 2d 1112, 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); see also Doctor v. State, 596 So. 2d 442, 444-45 (Fla.1992) (stating that “during the course of a legitimate frisk for weapons, police may only seize weapons or objects which reasonably could be weapons, despite the fact t…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence