Amendments to 916.115

1. Office of State Attorney v. Polites

   904 So. 2d 527 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 9 times

   In addition, the Florida Legislature provided for the application of state revenues to the State Attorney's Office, the Public Defender's Office, and court-appointed counsel to cover the costs of mental health experts appointed pursuant to section 916.115(2). See §§ 29.005(4), 29.006(4), 29.007(5), Fla. Stat. (2004). The Florida Legislature also provided for the application of state revenues to the courts' system to cover the costs of expert witnesses not requested by any party that are appointed by the court pursuant to an express grant of statutory authority. See § 29.004(6), Fla. Stat. (2004). Section 916.115(1)(b) provides that express grant of statutory authority.

   PAGE 532
2. Manuel v. State

   162 So. 3d 1157 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 2 times

   We reject any contention that without Dr. Olander's report the State has no way of knowing whether Manuel is competent to proceed. Pursuant to section 916.115, Florida Statutes, the State may request the trial court to appoint no more than three experts for the purpose of determining Manuel's competency to proceed. See§ 916.115, Fla. Stat.

   PAGE 1161
3. Miami-Dade County v. Jones

   793 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2001)   Cited 2 times

   Section 916.115 provides in pertinent part:

   PAGE 904
4. TITA v. STATE

   42 So. 3d 838 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 2 times

   The present rule provides that when a court has reasonable ground to believe a defendant is mentally incompetent during a material stage of a criminal proceeding the court " may order the defendant to be examined by no more than 3 experts, as needed, prior to the date of the hearing." Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.210(b) (2010) (emphasis supplied). As discussed above, the statute relating to appointment of experts, section 916.115, was amended in 2005 to remove language that required a court to appoint no fewer than two experts. The current statute provides that a court "shall appoint no more than three experts . . ." § 916.115(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). Thus, nothing in the statutes or rules requires a court to appoint a specific number of experts to evaluate a defendant's mental competency.

   PAGE 840
5. Addison v. State

   327 So. 3d 979 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 2 times

   Here, the trial court denied the appointment of an expert because it believed that the cost of an expert examination should not be borne by the court and that the appointment of an expert would improperly involve the court in an adversarial proceeding. No authority supports the proposition that cost concerns can justify dispensing with Petitioner's due process right to examination by at least one-court-appointed expert. In fact, such concerns are improper under section 916.115( 2), Florida Statutes, which requires the court to pay for a competency evaluation upon granting a court appointment, regardless of who requested it. Moreover, the appointment of an expert does not improperly involve the trial court in an adversarial proceeding because the court has more than a passive role in ensuring that a criminal defendant is competent to proceed. See Lane v. State , 388 So. 2d 1022, 1025 (Fla. 1980) ("The law is now clear that the trial court has the responsibility to conduct a hearing for competency to stand trial whenever it reasonably appears necessary, whether requested or not, to ensure that a defendant meets the standard of competency ...."); Bracero v. State , 10 So…

   PAGE 983
6. Wanless v. State

   271 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 1 times

   Wanless's first argument is that the trial court should have excluded the State's expert testimony about his sanity. Wanless argues that section 916.115(1)(a), Florida Statutes —which provides that court-appointed experts who evaluate defendants for sanity "each shall be a psychiatrist, licensed psychologist, or physician"—precludes expert testimony from anyone who is not a psychiatrist, licensed psychologist, or physician. But this argument confuses the qualifications of experts the court appoints to evaluate sanity with the qualifications of experts parties present at trial. Although experts appointed pursuant to section 916.115 sometimes testify at trial, see Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.216(i) ("Any experts appointed by the court may be summoned to testify at the trial ...." (emphasis added)), the parties may also introduce "[o]ther evidence regarding the defendant's insanity or mental condition," so long as it is otherwise admissible, see id.

   PAGE 1221
7. Yancy v. State

   88 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 2 times

   This dichotomy regarding the appointment of experts, depending on the nature of the examination, is recognized by section 916.115, Florida Statutes (2011). Section 916.115 initially states in subsection (1): “ The court shall appoint no more than three experts to determine the mental condition of a defendant in a criminal case, including competency to proceed, insanity, involuntary placement, and treatment.” (emphasis added). However, subsection (2) states: “If an expert appointed by the court upon motion of counsel for the defendant specifically to evaluate the competence of the defendant to proceed also addresses issues related to sanity as an affirmative defense, the court shall pay only for that portion of the expert's fees relating to the evaluation on competency to proceed, and the balance of the fees shall be chargeable to the defense.” (emphasis added). Similarly, subsection (2)(b) states that “the office of the state attorney shall pay for any expert retained by the office and for any expert whom the office retains and whom the office moves the court to appoint in order to ensure that the expert has access to the defendant.” (emphasis added).

   PAGE 1044
8. Williams v. State

   134 So. 3d 975 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 11 times

   An amended information charged Renard Williams (Appellant) with two counts of armed robbery with a firearm while wearing a mask. Appointed counsel filed a notice under section 916.115, Florida Statutes (2009), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(b)(1) alleging reasonable grounds to believe Appellant was not mentally competent to stand trial and seeking a hearing. A series of mental health reports and hearings culminated in the trial court's October 2010 determination that Appellant was competent to stand trial. A motion for reconsideration was denied.

   PAGE 976
9. W.Z. v. State

   35 So. 3d 51 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 6 times

   Mental competency evaluations in criminal proceedings are governed by section 916.115.

   PAGE 53
10. Dept. of Child. v. Alvarado

    946 So. 2d 130 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 1 times

    The Department of Children and Families, ("Department"), seeks certiorari review of an order finding Anthony R. Alvarado incompetent to proceed in his criminal case, and involuntarily committing Alvarado to the Department for mental health treatment pursuant to section 916.13, Florida Statutes (2006). The order on review states that the trial court based its decision solely upon the written reports of experts appointed pursuant to section 916.115, Florida Statutes (2006), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(b). There were three experts appointed to evaluate Alvarado. All three reported that Alvarado was competent to proceed.