Dusky standard in Florida

5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2025 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
Godinez v. Morangreen scotus · 1993 · cited in 3 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2009–2021 2 sentences 2012See Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 395-403 , 113 S.Ct. 2680 , 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993) (holding the Dusky standard applies to a defendant who decides to waive his right to counsel and plead guilty). 2012See Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 395-403 , 113 S.Ct. 2680 , 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993) (holding the Dusky standard applies to a defendant who decides to waive his right to counsel and plead guilty).	2	3
Peede v. Stategreen fla · 2007 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 2 sentences 2025That is, the court determined that Damas had “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and “a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Dusky, 362 U.S. at 402 ; see Peede v. State, 955 So. 2d 480, 488 (Fla. 2007) (holding that the Dusky standard is the test for whether a defendant is competent to stand trial). 2025That is, the court determined that Damas had “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and “a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Dusky, 362 U.S. at 402 ; see Peede v. State, 955 So. 2d 480, 488 (Fla. 2007) (holding that the Dusky standard is the test for whether a defendant is competent to stand trial).	1	1
Carter v. Stategreen fla · 1997 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 2 sentences 2025P. 3.211(a)(1), (2); Carter v. State, 706 So. 2d 873, 875 (Fla. 1997) (“Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.211(a)(1) codifies what is known as the Dusky standard of - 17 - competence . . . .”). 2025P. 3.211(a)(1), (2); Carter v. State, 706 So. 2d 873, 875 (Fla. 1997) (“Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.211(a)(1) codifies what is known as the Dusky standard of - 17 - competence . . . .”).	1	1
Indiana v. Edwardsgreen scotus · 2008 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012See Edwards, 554 U.S. at 174 , 128 S.Ct. 2379 (finding that exercising the right to self-representation requires a greater level of mental competence than set by the Dusky standard). 2012See Edwards, 554 U.S. at 174 , 128 S.Ct. 2379 (finding that exercising the right to self-representation requires a greater level of mental competence than set by the Dusky standard).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
Dusky v. United States green scotus · 1960 2 sentences 2025That is, the court determined that Damas had “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and “a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Dusky, 362 U.S. at 402 ; see Peede v. State, 955 So. 2d 480, 488 (Fla. 2007) (holding that the Dusky standard is the test for whether a defendant is competent to stand trial). 2025That is, the court determined that Damas had “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and “a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Dusky, 362 U.S. at 402 ; see Peede v. State, 955 So. 2d 480, 488 (Fla. 2007) (holding that the Dusky standard is the test for whether a defendant is competent to stand trial).	2	2009–2025
Boykin v. Alabama green scotus · 1969 2 sentences 2009The Court in Godinez explained: A defendant who stands trial is likely to be presented with choices that entail relinquishment of the same rights that are relinquished by a defendant who pleads guilty: He will ordinarily have to decide whether to waive his “privilege against compulsory self-incrimination,” Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243 , 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), by taking the witness stand; if the option is available, he may have to decide whether to waive his “right to trial by jury,” ibid.; and, in consultation with counsel, he may have to decide whether to waive h 2009The Court in Godinez explained: A defendant who stands trial is likely to be presented with choices that entail relinquishment of the same rights that are relinquished by a defendant who pleads guilty: He will ordinarily have to decide whether to waive his “privilege against compulsory self-incrimination,” Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243 , 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), by taking the witness stand; if the option is available, he may have to decide whether to waive his “right to trial by jury,” ibid.; and, in consultation with counsel, he may have to decide whether to waive h	1	2009–2009
Lane v. State green fla · 1980 2 sentences 1985This Court has followed the principles of law set forth in Bishop, Dusky, Robinson, and Drope in our decisions in Jones v. State, 362 So.2d 1334 (Fla. 1978); Lane v. State, 388 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1980); State v. Green, 395 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1981); Christopher v. State, 416 So.2d 450 (Fla. 1982); and Scott v. State, 420 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1982), and by our adoption of the Dusky test in our Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.210 and 3.211. 1985This Court has followed the principles of law set forth in Bishop, Dusky, Robinson, and Drope in our decisions in Jones v. State, 362 So.2d 1334 (Fla. 1978); Lane v. State, 388 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1980); State v. Green, 395 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1981); Christopher v. State, 416 So.2d 450 (Fla. 1982); and Scott v. State, 420 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1982), and by our adoption of the Dusky test in our Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.210 and 3.211.	1	1985–1985
State v. Green green fla · 1981 2 sentences 1985This Court has followed the principles of law set forth in Bishop, Dusky, Robinson, and Drope in our decisions in Jones v. State, 362 So.2d 1334 (Fla. 1978); Lane v. State, 388 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1980); State v. Green, 395 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1981); Christopher v. State, 416 So.2d 450 (Fla. 1982); and Scott v. State, 420 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1982), and by our adoption of the Dusky test in our Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.210 and 3.211. 1985This Court has followed the principles of law set forth in Bishop, Dusky, Robinson, and Drope in our decisions in Jones v. State, 362 So.2d 1334 (Fla. 1978); Lane v. State, 388 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1980); State v. Green, 395 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1981); Christopher v. State, 416 So.2d 450 (Fla. 1982); and Scott v. State, 420 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1982), and by our adoption of the Dusky test in our Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.210 and 3.211.	1	1985–1985
Christopher v. State green fla · 1982 2 sentences 1985This Court has followed the principles of law set forth in Bishop, Dusky, Robinson, and Drope in our decisions in Jones v. State, 362 So.2d 1334 (Fla. 1978); Lane v. State, 388 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1980); State v. Green, 395 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1981); Christopher v. State, 416 So.2d 450 (Fla. 1982); and Scott v. State, 420 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1982), and by our adoption of the Dusky test in our Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.210 and 3.211. 1985This Court has followed the principles of law set forth in Bishop, Dusky, Robinson, and Drope in our decisions in Jones v. State, 362 So.2d 1334 (Fla. 1978); Lane v. State, 388 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1980); State v. Green, 395 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1981); Christopher v. State, 416 So.2d 450 (Fla. 1982); and Scott v. State, 420 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1982), and by our adoption of the Dusky test in our Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.210 and 3.211.	1	1985–1985
Scott v. State green fla · 1982 2 sentences 1985This Court has followed the principles of law set forth in Bishop, Dusky, Robinson, and Drope in our decisions in Jones v. State, 362 So.2d 1334 (Fla. 1978); Lane v. State, 388 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1980); State v. Green, 395 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1981); Christopher v. State, 416 So.2d 450 (Fla. 1982); and Scott v. State, 420 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1982), and by our adoption of the Dusky test in our Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.210 and 3.211. 1985This Court has followed the principles of law set forth in Bishop, Dusky, Robinson, and Drope in our decisions in Jones v. State, 362 So.2d 1334 (Fla. 1978); Lane v. State, 388 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1980); State v. Green, 395 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1981); Christopher v. State, 416 So.2d 450 (Fla. 1982); and Scott v. State, 420 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1982), and by our adoption of the Dusky test in our Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.210 and 3.211.	1	1985–1985
Jones v. State green fla · 1978 2 sentences 1985This Court has followed the principles of law set forth in Bishop, Dusky, Robinson, and Drope in our decisions in Jones v. State, 362 So.2d 1334 (Fla. 1978); Lane v. State, 388 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1980); State v. Green, 395 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1981); Christopher v. State, 416 So.2d 450 (Fla. 1982); and Scott v. State, 420 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1982), and by our adoption of the Dusky test in our Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.210 and 3.211. 1985This Court has followed the principles of law set forth in Bishop, Dusky, Robinson, and Drope in our decisions in Jones v. State, 362 So.2d 1334 (Fla. 1978); Lane v. State, 388 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1980); State v. Green, 395 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1981); Christopher v. State, 416 So.2d 450 (Fla. 1982); and Scott v. State, 420 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1982), and by our adoption of the Dusky test in our Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.210 and 3.211.	1	1985–1985

Where else courts name it

CA 21 (1994–2026) TN 12 (1988–2016) TX 8 (1979–2016) CT 8 (1999–2014) CO 7 (1985–2018) NC 6 (2011–2023) FL 5 (1985–2025) MS 4 (1983–2020) VT 4 (1994–2005) WA 4 (2017–2025) IA 4 (2009–2021) WI 4 (1997–2014) NH 4 (1985–2019) AZ 3 (1985–2020) DC 3 (1990–2005) OR 3 (2018–2026) AL 3 (1978–1987) OH 3 (2007–2022) KY 2 (2009–2013) NV 2 (2024–2026) DE 2 (2019–2023) MD 2 (1977–2015) IN 2 (2007–2008) MT 2 (1982–1982) NY 2 (2004–2004)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check