CLEVELAND V. MCKNIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Cleveland McKnight appeals his conviction for assault with intent to commit murder in the first and second degree, challenging both the denial of his motion to set aside the verdict based on trial incompetency and the trial court's finding that he was competent for sentencing. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentences, holding that pretrial competency determinations supported trial competency and that competent evidence supported the sentencing competency finding.
The court held that the pretrial competency determination supported the defendant's competency at trial, and the post-trial finding of sentencing incompetence did not retroactively demonstrate trial incompetency. Additionally, competent substantial evidence in the record supported the trial judge's finding that the defendant was mentally competent for sentencing, and the appellate court would not disturb such findings when conflicting expert testimony existed.
[1] A defendant's competence to stand trial is presumed unless evidence to the contrary is presented, and a pretrial determination of competence is generally binding absent o…
[2] A finding of incompetence to be sentenced does not retroactively establish incompetence to have stood trial.
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 record reflects the pretrial examination resulted in a determination that the defendant was competent to stand trial. Defense counsel made no objection thereto nor did the defense make any motion for a mental examination during the trial proceedings.”
Establishes that competency was determined pretrial with no defense challenge, defeating the argument that trial incompetency should have been considered.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcKnight was indicted on August 29, 1973 for one count of murder in the first degree and two counts of assault with intent to commit murder. Pretrial …
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 Be Sentenced cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant in the trial court seeks review of his conviction of assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree and second degree, and the 10 year concurrent sentences.
Defendant, Cleveland McKnight, was indicted on August 29, 1973 for one count of murder in the first degree and two counts of assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree. After a plea of not guilty was entered, defense motion for a psychiatric evaluation was granted and two disinterested qualified experts were appointed to examine the defendant. These experts determined that defendant was competent to stand trial held on April 15-18, 1974. Conflicting evidence was presented at trial as to whether defendant had sustained permanent organic brain damage as a result of his suffering from alcoholism. The jury returned a not guilty verdict on the murder count and found the defendant guilty on the two counts of assault with intent to commit murder. Defense motion to set aside verdict was denied and thereafter several experts examined the defendant to determine his competency to be sentenced. In May 1974, having been found incompetent for sentencing, defendant was committed to the Division of Mental Health. On November 8, 1974 he was adjudged competent for sentencing and on November 21, 1974 readjudged competent therefor. The trial judge on December 3, 1974 sentenced the defendant to 10 year concurrent sentences on the two counts. This appeal followed.
Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in denying defense motion to set aside verdict on the grounds that he was incompetent to stand trial.
The record reflects the pretrial examination resulted in a determination that the defendant was competent to stand trial. Defense counsel made no objection thereto nor did the defense make any motion for a mental examination during the trial proceedings. Further, the after trial reports finding the defendant mentally incompetent to stand sentencing in no way indicated that defendant was such during the actual trial. We conclude that this point is lacking in merit. Cf. Surrette v. State, Fla.App.1971, 251 So. 2d 149.
Defendant secondly urges as error the finding of the trial judge in November 1974 that he was competent to stand sentencing.
The record contains conflicting expert testimony as to whether the appellant was mentally competent to stand sentencing. There being competent substantial evidence contained therein to support the trial judge resolving the conflict in favor of the mental competency of the defendant, we will not disturb this determination on appeal. See Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 24. Thus, this point of appellant must fail.
For the reasons stated, the judgment and sentences are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wells v. State, 417 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…competent to competent without a hearing. Alexander v. State; Parks v. State, 290 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).1 I am also unable to agree with my colleagues’ application of Lopez v. State, 405 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) and McKnight v. State, 319 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) to the instant case. It is undisputed here that there was no agreement between the court and the parties that the issue of insanity could be tried on the written medical reports, therefore, Lopez and McKnight are inapposite. The…1 / 2
-
Owens v. State, 438 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…PER CURIAM. The defendant’s convictions are affirmed. See Tejeda-Bermudez v. State, 427 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Hudson, 397 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); McKnight v. State, 319 So. 2d 647 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). The state has conceded to an error in the sentencing documents which resulted in a minimum mandatory three-year sentence for the conviction of rape without use or threatened use of a firearm. We therefore reverse that portion of…
Authorities Cited
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Surrette v. State, 251 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)