From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clarke v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Sep 18, 1984
455 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Opinion

No. 84-1380.

September 18, 1984.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Howard J. Hochman, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for petitioner.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Steven Kolodny, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and BASKIN, JJ.


We deny the petition for certiorari under review because we find that the trial court properly found that before the accused can be considered for the remedies provided under Rule 3.213(b) Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, said accused must demonstrate 5 consecutive uninterrupted years of incompetency to stand trial. As the record herein reflects that the defendant's periods of incompetency had been broken by periods of competency the trial court was correct in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss.

Until such time as a trial court determines that the defendant has been incompetent for 5 consecutive years it does not reach the second determination of the rule "that there is no substantial probability that the defendant will become mentally competent to stand trial in the foreseeable future".


Summaries of

Clarke v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Sep 18, 1984
455 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
Case details for

Clarke v. State

Case Details

Full title:HANSEL TYRONE CLARKE, PETITIONER, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Sep 18, 1984

Citations

455 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Citing Cases

State v. Morris

To rebut this presumption, it was the State's burden to offer evidence of a change in appellee's mental…

Downing v. State

with a felony, or 1 year when charged with a misdemeanor, the court, after hearing, determines that the…