MM00-09177A-XX - Butler v. State

TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT FOR HARDEE, HIGHLANDS, AND
POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA

County Case No.: MM00-09177A-XX

Appeal No.: DD-1

ROBERT L. BUTLER,

Appellant,

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

___________________

OPINION OF THE COURT

This is an appeal from the county court of Polk County, Judge James Yancey presiding. Appellant Robert L. Butler, Jr., after trial by jury, was found guilty of criminal mischief. Appellant appeals the judgement and sentence and claims that the trial court erred in not ordering a competency evaluation prior to the jury trial. This court has jurisdiction Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(c). The ruling of the county court is affirmed.

The threshold question in ruling on a motion to determine competency to stand trial is Awhether there is reasonable ground to believe the defendant may be incompetent, not whether he is incompetent. Whether or not he is incompetent should be determined after a hearing. Scott v. State, 420 So.2d 595, 597 (Fla. 1982) citing Walker v. State, 384 So.2d 730, 733 (Fla. 4^th DCA 1980). The trial court is required to conduct a hearing for competency to stand trial whenever it reasonably appears necessary to ensure that a defendant has Asufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 789, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960); See also, Scott v. State, 420 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1982); Christopher v. State, 416 So.2d 450, 452 (Fla. 1982).

In the present case, defense counsel raised the possibility that Appellant was not competent to proceed. (V1; T3) Having heard counsel=s reasons for her concern, the trial judge entered into a colloquy with the appellant in order to determine whether there was reasonable ground to believe that the defendant may be incompetent. (V1; T11-16; 18-22) Upon completion of the colloquy and subsequent discussion with the appellant, the court did not find grounds to conduct a competency hearing. (V1; T19) Rather, the court specifically found that AMr. Butler understood what was going on and appreciated the situation and appreciated the circumstances. (V1; T 19-20) The court went on to state AI think what Mr. Butler's problem is that he's frustrated - - whether that's legitimate or not, but he is frustrated about, I guess the strategy and handling of the case. Having reviewed the evidence in this case, the court finds that there is nothing in the record which would have led the trial judge to find reasonable grounds for a competency hearing.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the ruling of the county court is AFFIRMED.

ORDERED November 2001.

Charles B. Curry, Chief Judge