sanity hearing in Florida

2017In that case, this Court found that where the trial court would have likely accorded a mitigating circumstance the same amount of weight had it used a different standard, the defendant’s claim should be denied. 697 So. 2d at 818-19 .

2017In that case, this Court found that where the trial court would have likely accorded a mitigating circumstance the same amount of weight had it used a different standard, the defendant’s claim should be denied. 697 So. 2d at 818-19 .

2005Id. at 874-75 .

2000To support this argument, Holland cites to Campbell v. State, 571 So.2d 415 (Fla.1990), which he claims held that the sanity standard cannot be used to reject mental mitigators.

2000To support this argument, Holland cites to Campbell v. State, 571 So.2d 415 (Fla.1990), which he claims held that the sanity standard cannot be used to reject mental mitigators.

1988In State v. Burwick, 442 So.2d 944 (Fla. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 931 , 104 S.Ct. 1719 , 80 L.Ed.2d 191 (1984), this Court held as inadmissible "evidence of a defendant's post-arrest conduct, including silence and the request to see an attorney after receiving Miranda warnings, as it relates solely to the issue of mental condition near the time of the offense when the defendant has asserted the insanity defense and the evidence is presented by the state in rebuttal." 442 So.2d at 945 (citation omitted).

1988In State v. Burwick, 442 So.2d 944 (Fla. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 931 , 104 S.Ct. 1719 , 80 L.Ed.2d 191 (1984), this Court held as inadmissible "evidence of a defendant's post-arrest conduct, including silence and the request to see an attorney after receiving Miranda warnings, as it relates solely to the issue of mental condition near the time of the offense when the defendant has asserted the insanity defense and the evidence is presented by the state in rebuttal." 442 So.2d at 945 (citation omitted).

1988In State v. Burwick, 442 So.2d 944 (Fla. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 931 , 104 S.Ct. 1719 , 80 L.Ed.2d 191 (1984), this Court held as inadmissible "evidence of a defendant's post-arrest conduct, including silence and the request to see an attorney after receiving Miranda warnings, as it relates solely to the issue of mental condition near the time of the offense when the defendant has asserted the insanity defense and the evidence is presented by the state in rebuttal." 442 So.2d at 945 (citation omitted).

1985There was sufficient evidence adduced at the sanity hearing below upon which the trial court could have concluded, as it did, that the defendant Jones had a "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding" and had a "rational, as well as factual, understanding of the proceedings against him." § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1983); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.210(a)(1); see Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 , 80 S.Ct. 788 , 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960); Lane v. State, 388 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1980); see also Brock v. State, 69 So.2d 344 (Fla. 1954); Morejon v. Stat

1985There was sufficient evidence adduced at the sanity hearing below upon which the trial court could have concluded, as it did, that the defendant Jones had a "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding" and had a "rational, as well as factual, understanding of the proceedings against him." § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1983); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.210(a)(1); see Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 , 80 S.Ct. 788 , 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960); Lane v. State, 388 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1980); see also Brock v. State, 69 So.2d 344 (Fla. 1954); Morejon v. Stat

1985There was sufficient evidence adduced at the sanity hearing below upon which the trial court could have concluded, as it did, that the defendant Jones had a "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding" and had a "rational, as well as factual, understanding of the proceedings against him." § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1983); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.210(a)(1); see Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 , 80 S.Ct. 788 , 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960); Lane v. State, 388 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1980); see also Brock v. State, 69 So.2d 344 (Fla. 1954); Morejon v. Stat

1985There was sufficient evidence adduced at the sanity hearing below upon which the trial court could have concluded, as it did, that the defendant Jones had a "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding" and had a "rational, as well as factual, understanding of the proceedings against him." § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1983); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.210(a)(1); see Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 , 80 S.Ct. 788 , 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960); Lane v. State, 388 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1980); see also Brock v. State, 69 So.2d 344 (Fla. 1954); Morejon v. Stat

1982Byrd v. State, 297 So.2d 22, 24 (Fla. 1974); Acree v. State, 153 Fla. 561 , 15 So.2d 262 (1943).

1982Byrd v. State, 297 So.2d 22, 24 (Fla. 1974); Acree v. State, 153 Fla. 561 , 15 So.2d 262 (1943).

1973In this case, on May 26, 1972, 262 So.2d 737 , we entered order remanding the cause back to the Polk County Criminal Court of Record as the trial Court, with directions to that Court to determine in a full hearing, as required by CrPR 1.210(a), F.S.A., whether Pedrero, as defendant therein, was or was not sane at the time of his trial, and to thereafter transmit the entire record of this case, including a transcript of the sanity hearing and a copy of the trial Judge’s order respecting Pedrero’s said sanity at the time of the trial, back to this Court for further proceedings herein.

1970The local Public Defender, duly appointed by the trial Court to represent Albright on this appeal, filed his brief in this Court setting forth that the grounds urged by Al-bright in his present motion under CrPR 1.850 before the lower Court and also before this Court are “the same grounds * * as in all of his previous motions and appeals” and that he could not in good conscience further prosecute this appeal here on behalf of Albright, observing that “Florida law prohibits the granting of a said motion where previous appeals have used the same grounds without merit.” On June 23, 1970, pursuant

1970The local Public Defender, duly appointed by the trial Court to represent Albright on this appeal, filed his brief in this Court setting forth that the grounds urged by Al-bright in his present motion under CrPR 1.850 before the lower Court and also before this Court are “the same grounds * * as in all of his previous motions and appeals” and that he could not in good conscience further prosecute this appeal here on behalf of Albright, observing that “Florida law prohibits the granting of a said motion where previous appeals have used the same grounds without merit.” On June 23, 1970, pursuant

1967People v. Pugach, Bronx County Ct. 1962, 33 Misc.2d 938, 942 , 225 N.Y.S.2d 822, 826 ; People v. Cunningham, Bronx County Ct. 1954, 2 Misc.2d 162, 164 , 134 N.Y.S.2d 212, 215 , appeal dismissed, 283 App.Div. 1057 , 132 N.Y.S.2d 927 .

1967People v. Pugach, Bronx County Ct. 1962, 33 Misc.2d 938, 942 , 225 N.Y.S.2d 822, 826 ; People v. Cunningham, Bronx County Ct. 1954, 2 Misc.2d 162, 164 , 134 N.Y.S.2d 212, 215 , appeal dismissed, 283 App.Div. 1057 , 132 N.Y.S.2d 927 .

1967People v. Pugach, Bronx County Ct. 1962, 33 Misc.2d 938, 942 , 225 N.Y.S.2d 822, 826 ; People v. Cunningham, Bronx County Ct. 1954, 2 Misc.2d 162, 164 , 134 N.Y.S.2d 212, 215 , appeal dismissed, 283 App.Div. 1057 , 132 N.Y.S.2d 927 .

1967People v. Pugach, Bronx County Ct. 1962, 33 Misc.2d 938, 942 , 225 N.Y.S.2d 822, 826 ; People v. Cunningham, Bronx County Ct. 1954, 2 Misc.2d 162, 164 , 134 N.Y.S.2d 212, 215 , appeal dismissed, 283 App.Div. 1057 , 132 N.Y.S.2d 927 .

1967People v. Pugach, Bronx County Ct. 1962, 33 Misc.2d 938, 942 , 225 N.Y.S.2d 822, 826 ; People v. Cunningham, Bronx County Ct. 1954, 2 Misc.2d 162, 164 , 134 N.Y.S.2d 212, 215 , appeal dismissed, 283 App.Div. 1057 , 132 N.Y.S.2d 927 .

1967People v. Pugach, Bronx County Ct. 1962, 33 Misc.2d 938, 942 , 225 N.Y.S.2d 822, 826 ; People v. Cunningham, Bronx County Ct. 1954, 2 Misc.2d 162, 164 , 134 N.Y.S.2d 212, 215 , appeal dismissed, 283 App.Div. 1057 , 132 N.Y.S.2d 927 .