ANTONIO ATWATER, 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.
Antonio Atwater, convicted of first-degree murder and armed robbery, appealed arguing the trial court erred by failing to hold a competency hearing after appointing a confidential expert to evaluate his competency to proceed. The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the appointment of a confidential expert at defense counsel's request, made as a precautionary measure without assertion of incompetence, does not trigger a mandatory competency hearing.
A trial court is not required to conduct a competency hearing under Rule 3.210 after appointing an expert at defense counsel's request under Rule 3.216 unless the defendant's attorney decides to actually raise the defense of insanity or assert incompetence to proceed. The appointment of a confidential expert made as a precautionary measure is insufficient to trigger a mandatory competency hearing.
[1] A trial court is not required to hold a competency hearing when defense counsel requests a confidential expert evaluation solely to assist in determining the defendant's…
[2] A motion for a confidential expert to evaluate a defendant's competency, made under Rule 3.216(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, is insufficient on its own to trig…
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“the request for a confidential expert evaluation was made as a precautionary measure and was insufficient to trigger a mandatory competency hearing under Rule 3.210(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure”
Establishes that the appointment of a confidential expert alone does not require a competency hearing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAtwater was convicted of first-degree murder and two counts of armed robbery. Prior to trial, defense counsel moved pursuant to Rule 8.216(a) to have …
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 Competency To Proceed cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion for Written Opinion
Antonio Atwater was convicted of first-degree murder and two counts of armed robbery. In his single issue on appeal, Atwater argued that the trial court reversibly erred by failing to hold a competency hearing after appointing a confidential expert to evaluate Atwater for the purpose of aiding defense counsel in determining At-water’s competency to proceed. We previously affirmed Atwater’s judgments and sentences without an opinion. We now grant his motion for written opinion, withdraw our prior decision, and substitute the following opinion in its place.
Prior to trial, defense counsel moved, pursuant to Rule 8.216(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, to have a “confidential expert” appointed “to examine [Atwater] in order to assist counsel in determination of [Atwater’s] competence to proceed.” The court promptly entered an order appointing an expert as requested, and the order expressly provided that under Rule 3.216(a), the expert was to report only to defense counsel and that all matters related to the evaluation fell within the lawyer-client privilege. The content and context of the motion and related oral representations by defense counsel to the court demonstrate that the request for a confidential expert evaluation was made as a precautionary measure and was insufficient to trigger a mandatory competency hearing under Rule 3.210(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Without more, the court was not required to take further action relating to Atwater’s competency before proceeding with trial and sentencing. See Crosby v. State, 176 So.3d 382, 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (explaining a trial court is not required to conduct a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210 competency hearing after appointing an expert at defense counsel’s request made pursuant to Rule 3.216, “unless the defendant’s attorney decides to actually raise the defense of insanity or assert incompetence to proceed.”); see also State v. Guyton, 446 So.2d 644, 644-45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (discussing rules 3.210 and 3.216).
Affirmed.
Ray and Osterhaus, JJ., and Patterson, Christopher N., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Demetre Antoine Moore v. State, 248 So. 3d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Atwater v. State, 233 So. 3d 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and OSTERHAUS and BILBREY, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ And…
-
Stafford v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Atwater v. State, 233 So. 3d 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). ROBERTS, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ Andy Thomas, Public…
-
Christian v. State, 233 So. 3d 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)