PERNELL GRANT, 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.
The appellant challenged the trial court's denial of his request for a confidential expert to determine competency before sentencing. The court held that appointment of such an expert was mandatory under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.216(a) when the defendant's attorney expressed reasonable belief that the defendant may be incompetent, and reversed and remanded for appointment and resentencing.
The trial court was required to appoint a confidential expert under Rule 3.216(a) because the threshold requirements of the rule were satisfied when the appointed attorney advised the court that she had reason to believe the defendant may be incompetent. The requirement for appointment is mandatory and the trial court's denial was erroneous.
[1] A trial court must appoint a confidential expert to examine a defendant for competency when defense counsel has reason to believe the defendant may be incompetent and the…
[2] The requirement to appoint a confidential expert under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.216(a) is satisfied when appointed counsel informs the court of a belief that…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“When in any criminal case a defendant is adjudged to be indigent or partially indigent, and is not represented by the public defender or regional counsel, and counsel has reason to believe that the defendant may be incompetent to proceed or that the defendant may have been insane at the time of the offense or probation or community control violation, counsel may so inform the court who shall appoint 1 expert to examine the defendant in order to assist counsel in the preparation of the defense.”
Full text of Rule 3.216(a) establishing the mandatory appointment standard
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePernell Grant entered guilty pleas to armed robbery, fleeing or attempting to elude an officer, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Prio…
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 Indigent Defendants cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, Pernell Grant, challenges the trial court’s denial of his request to *954have a confidential expert appointed to determine his competency. The appellant argues, and the State concedes, that appointment of a confidential expert was mandatory because the threshold showing required under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.216(a) was satisfied. We agree.
In two cases below, the appellant entered pleas of guilty to armed robbery, fleeing or attempting to elude an officer, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Prior to sentencing, the appellant’s attorney filed a motion for the appointment of a confidential expert because she believed the appellant may be incompetent based on a letter he had written. At the time of his motion for a confidential expert, the appellant, an indigent, was represented by court-appointed counsel due to a conflict with the public defender and regional counsel. The trial court denied the motion because it did not include a good faith certificate and proceeded to sentence the appellant.
Rule 3.216(a) provides:
When in any criminal case a defendant is adjudged to be indigent or partially indigent, and is not represented by the public defender or regional counsel, and counsel has reason to believe that the defendant may be incompetent to proceed or that the defendant may have been insane at the time of the offense or probation or community control violation, counsel may so inform the court who shall appoint 1 expert to examine the defendant in order to assist counsel in the preparation of the defense. The expert shall report only to the attorney for the defendant and matters related to the expert shall be deemed to fall under the lawyer-client privilege.
The trial court was required to appoint a confidential expert pursuant to this rule based on the attorney’s belief that the appellant may be incompetent. See State v. Hamilton, 448 So.2d 1007, 1008 (Fla. 1984) (holding that when an appointed attorney advises the trial court that he has reason to believe that his client is incompetent to stand trial and requests the appointment of a defense expert under rule 3.216(a), the threshold requirements of the rule are satisfied, and court-appointment of the expert is mandatory); Price v. State, 816 So.2d 738, 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Accordingly, the appellant’s sentences are reversed, and the cases are remanded for the appointment of a confidential expert and resentencing. See Ahedo v. State, 842 So.2d 868, 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (remanding for resentencing upon a misapplication of rule 3.216(a) prior to sentencing).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PADOVANO, ROBERTS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hamilton, 448 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 1984)
- Darius Donard Price v. State, 816 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Ahedo v. State, 842 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)