WILLIAM TONY MCCROAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA (N.F.E.T.C.), 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.
McCroan was found incompetent to proceed and subsequently adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity by the trial court. The appellate court reversed and remanded, but the trial court again entered a similar order on remand, prompting McCroan's motion to enforce the mandate. The court reaffirms that a trial court cannot find an incompetent defendant not guilty by reason of insanity without a jury trial waiver.
The trial court violated the appellate mandate by again finding McCroan not guilty by reason of insanity on remand. The trial court is without authority to proceed against McCroan until competency is restored and is without authority to find him not guilty by reason of insanity absent a jury trial waiver, as this is a fact question for the jury.
[1] A trial court order finding an incompetent defendant not guilty by reason of insanity is void.
[2] The question of whether a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity is a question of fact for the jury, and a trial court lacks the authority to make this finding unl…
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“because a defendant may not be proceeded against while incompetent to stand trial, a trial court's order finding an incompetent defendant not guilty by reason of insanity is void.”
Establishes the foundational principle that trial courts cannot adjudicate insanity when the defendant is incompetent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhile awaiting trial on criminal charges, the trial court found McCroan incompetent to proceed and then found him not guilty by reason of insanity, or…
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 Motion To Enforce Mandate cases and more on FLexlaw
OPINION ON MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE
McCroan filed a motion asking this court to enter an opinion enforcing its mandate. For the reasons discussed below, we grant the motion.
While McCroan was awaiting trial on criminal charges, the trial court found McCroan incompetent to proceed. The court then entered an order finding him not guilty by reason of insanity. The court also found McCroan was a danger to himself or others and ordered that he be civilly committed. McCroan subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court, arguing the court lacked the authority to adjudicate him not guilty by reason of insanity because that was a jury question, and because the court had found him incompetent to proceed. The court denied the motion.
On appeal, the State correctly conceded error. This court issued an opinion on April 4, 2013, reversing the trial court’s denial of McCroan’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and remanding for the court to quash the order finding McCroan not guilty by reason of insanity. McCroan v. State, 110 So.3d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). The opinion cited Thompson v. Crawford, in which the Third District held that because a defendant may not be proceeded against while incompetent to stand trial, a trial court’s order finding an incompetent defendant not guilty by reason of insanity is void. 479 So.2d 169, 185-86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The Thompson court also held the question of whether a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity is a question of fact for the jury; thus, the trial court lacks the authority to make this finding unless the defendant has waived the right to a jury trial. Id. at 180.
On remand, the trial court did not quash the order finding McCroan not guilty by *549reason of insanity, as required by this court’s opinion. To the contrary, the court entered a second order again finding McCroan not guilty by reason of insanity. The court also found McCroan continued to be a danger to himself or others and ordered that he continue to be civilly committed. The court has not, to date, found that McCroan has regained his competency to stand trial.
In response to McCroan’s motion to enforce mandate, the State correctly concedes error. Accordingly, we grant the motion to enforce mandate and again instruct the trial court to quash the order finding McCroan not guilty by reason of insanity. We write to make it explicitly clear that the court is without authority to proceed against McCroan until the court finds that his competency has been restored. Further, the court is without authority to find McCroan not guilty by reason of insanity because McCroan has not waived his right to a jury trial. Thompson, 479 So.2d at 185-86.
Motion to enforce mandate GRANTED; REMANDED with instructions.
LEWIS, C.J., WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elder v. State, 268 So. 3d 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…g on remand, Elder remained incompetent. Likewise, at the time the court purported to reinstate the judgment and sentence Elder was incompetent. The court was without authority to proceed against Elder at either of these times. See McCroan v. State, 148 So. 3d 548, 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (granting motion to enforce mandate and "mak[ing] it explicitly clear that the court is without authority to proceed against McCroan until the court finds that his competency has been restored").…
-
Lowry v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Thompson v. Crawford, 479 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- McCROAN v. State of Fla. (N.F.E.T.C.), 110 So. 3d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)