MCMILLION

v.

MARYLAND

Citator

Cited By

• State v. Edwardo Gorayeb, 510 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
  …he program, the terms of the agreement would be unenforceable and the instant case must be permitted to go forward. See United States v. Hicks, 693 F. 2d 32 (5th Cir.1982) (breach of plea bargain precludes enforceability by defendant), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1220, 103 S.Ct. 1226, 75 L.Ed.2d 461 (1983); Hoffman v. State, 474 So. 2d 1178 (Fla.1985) (same); Brown v. State, 367 So. 2d 616 (Fla.1979) (same); Lerman v. Cornelius, 423 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (same). A contrary factual finding would of course…
• United States v. Cruz, 805 F.2d 1464 (11th Cir. 1986)
  …ay rule on a § 4241 motion of incompetency without benefit of a full dress hearing so long as the court has no “bona fide doubt” as to the competence of the defendant. Scarborough v. United States, 683 F. 2d 1323, 1325 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1220, 103 S.Ct. 1225, 75 L.Ed.2d 460 (1983). The legal test for competency is whether the defendant had “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and whether he had “a rational as well as f…
• Fallada v. Dugger, 819 F.2d 1564 (11th Cir. 1987)
  …fide doubt” as to a defendant’s competence, it must sua sponte conduct a hearing on his competence to stand trial. See Hance, 696 F. 2d at 948; Scarborough v. U.S., 683 F. 2d 1323, 1324 (11th Cir.), reh’g denied, 690 F. 2d 907 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1220, 103 S.Ct. 1225, 75 L.Ed.2d 460 (1983). If the trial court ignores a bona fide doubt as to the defendant’s competency, Pate requires a nunc pro tunc competency hearing as long as a meaningful inquiry into the defendant’s competency can still be made…