916.12
Mental competence to proceed.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
916.12 Mental competence to proceed.—
(1) A defendant is incompetent to proceed within the meaning of this chapter if the defendant does not have sufficient present ability to consult with her or his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or if the defendant has no rational, as well as factual, understanding of the proceedings against her or him.
(2) Mental health experts appointed pursuant to s. 916.115 shall first determine whether the defendant has a mental illness and, if so, consider the factors related to the issue of whether the defendant meets the criteria for competence to proceed as described in subsection (1). A defendant must be evaluated by no fewer than two experts before the court commits the defendant or takes other action authorized by this chapter or the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, except if one expert finds that the defendant is incompetent to proceed and the parties stipulate to that finding, the court may commit the defendant or take other action authorized by this chapter or the rules without further evaluation or hearing, or the court may appoint no more than two additional experts to evaluate the defendant. Notwithstanding any stipulation by the state and the defendant, the court may require a hearing with testimony from the expert or experts before ordering the commitment of a defendant.
(3) In considering the issue of competence to proceed, an examining expert shall first consider and specifically include in his or her report the defendant’s capacity to:
(a) Appreciate the charges or allegations against the defendant.
(b) Appreciate the range and nature of possible penalties, if applicable, that may be imposed in the proceedings against the defendant.
(c) Understand the adversarial nature of the legal process.
(d) Disclose to counsel facts pertinent to the proceedings at issue.
(e) Manifest appropriate courtroom behavior.
(f) Testify relevantly.
In addition, an examining expert shall consider and include in his or her report any other factor deemed relevant by the expert.
(4) If an expert finds that the defendant is incompetent to proceed, the expert shall report on any recommended treatment for the defendant to attain competence to proceed. In considering the issues relating to treatment, the examining expert shall specifically report on:
(a) The mental illness causing the incompetence.
(b) The completion of a clinical assessment by approved mental health experts trained by the department to ensure safety of the patient and the community.
(c) The treatment or treatments appropriate for the mental illness of the defendant and an explanation of each of the possible treatment alternatives, including, at a minimum, mental health services, treatment services, rehabilitative services, support services, and case management services as described in s. 394.67, which may be provided by or within multidisciplinary community treatment teams, such as Florida Assertive Community Treatment, conditional release programs, outpatient services or intensive outpatient treatment programs, and supportive employment and supportive housing opportunities in treating and supporting the recovery of the patient.
(d) The availability of acceptable treatment and, if treatment is available in the community, the expert shall so state in the report. In determining what acceptable treatments are available in the community, the expert shall, at a minimum, use current information or resources on less restrictive treatment alternatives, as described in paragraph (c) and those obtained from forensic evaluators training provided by the department.
(e) The likelihood of the defendant’s attaining competence under the treatment recommended, an assessment of the probable duration of the treatment required to restore competence, and the probability that the defendant will attain competence to proceed in the foreseeable future.
The examining expert’s report to the court shall include a full and detailed explanation regarding why the alternative treatment options referenced in the evaluation are insufficient to meet the needs of the defendant.
(5) A defendant who, because of psychotropic medication, is able to understand the nature of proceedings and assist in the defendant’s own defense shall not automatically be deemed incompetent to proceed simply because the defendant’s satisfactory mental functioning is dependent upon such medication. As used in this subsection, “psychotropic medication” means any drug or compound used to treat mental or emotional disorders affecting the mind, behavior, intellectual functions, perception, moods, or emotions and includes antipsychotic, antidepressant, antimanic, and antianxiety drugs.
History.—s. 1, ch. 80-75; s. 1529, ch. 97-102; s. 15, ch. 98-92; s. 59, ch. 2005-236; s. 11, ch. 2006-195; s. 21, ch. 2010-117; s. 3, ch. 2023-270; s. 12, ch. 2025-143.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 66
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Caraballo v. State
Caraballo v. State (2010)
“These procedures have also been codified in section 916.12, Florida Statutes (2006). As a result of the court's obligation to ensure that the material stages of a prosecution not proceed against a criminal defendant while the defendant is mentally incompetent, any defendant may…”
In Re Commitment of Reilly (2007)
“" This stipulation was entered pursuant to section 916.12(2), Florida Statutes (2006), which permits the trial court to adjudicate a person incompetent if the parties stipulate to a finding of incompetence by one mental health expert.”
Muhammad v. State (1986)
“§ 916.12(1), Fla. Stat.(1981). Muhammad attacks the determination that he was competent on the ground that it is not supported by sufficient evidence.”
Department of Children and Families v. Clem (2005)
“" See § 916.12(4), Fla. Stat. (2003). Section 916.”
McCray v. State (2011)
“2d 824 (1960)); § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (2008); Fla. R.Crim.”
Robert L. Rumph v. State (2017)
“2d 824 (1960)); accord § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (2014); Whitfield v.”
Hertz v. State (2001)
“2d 824 (1960)); see also § 916.12(1), Fla.Stat. (1993); Fla. *640 R.”
State v. Miranda (2014)
“Marban and DeFeo, specifically directing them to determine whether the defendant met the criteria of incompetence to proceed under section 916.12, which only relates to mental illness.”
Hunter v. State (1995)
“2d 824, 825 (1960); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Fla.R.Crim.”
Miami-Dade County v. Jones (2001)
“The nature and scope of the competency evaluation is outlined in the following provisions of section 916.12, Florida Statutes (2000). This section is the mirror image of the guidelines and parameters to be applied when rule 3.”
Evans v. State (2001)
“2d 824, 825 (1960); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Fla. R.Crim.”
Mora v. State (2002)
“2d 824 (1960); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Fla. R.Crim.”
— 916.12(1) — 34 cases
Caraballo v. State (2010)
“These procedures have also been codified in section 916.12, Florida Statutes (2006). As a result of the court's obligation to ensure that the material stages of a prosecution not proceed against a criminal defendant while the defendant is mentally incompetent, any defendant may…”
Muhammad v. State (1986)
“§ 916.12(1), Fla. Stat.(1981). Muhammad attacks the determination that he was competent on the ground that it is not supported by sufficient evidence.”
McCray v. State (2011)
“2d 824 (1960)); § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (2008); Fla. R.Crim.”
Robert L. Rumph v. State (2017)
“2d 824 (1960)); accord § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (2014); Whitfield v.”
Hertz v. State (2001)
“2d 824 (1960)); see also § 916.12(1), Fla.Stat. (1993); Fla. *640 R.”
— 916.12(2) — 10 cases
In Re Commitment of Reilly (2007)
“" This stipulation was entered pursuant to section 916.12(2), Florida Statutes (2006), which permits the trial court to adjudicate a person incompetent if the parties stipulate to a finding of incompetence by one mental health expert.”
Miami-Dade County v. Jones (2001)
“The nature and scope of the competency evaluation is outlined in the following provisions of section 916.12, Florida Statutes (2000). This section is the mirror image of the guidelines and parameters to be applied when rule 3.”
Douse v. State (2006)
Horton v. Judd (2012)
— 916.12(3) — 5 cases
Hernandez-Alberto v. State (2013)
State v. Miranda (2014)
“Marban and DeFeo, specifically directing them to determine whether the defendant met the criteria of incompetence to proceed under section 916.12, which only relates to mental illness.”
Miami-Dade County v. Jones (2001)
“The nature and scope of the competency evaluation is outlined in the following provisions of section 916.12, Florida Statutes (2000). This section is the mirror image of the guidelines and parameters to be applied when rule 3.”
— 916.12(3)(a) — 1 case
State v. Miranda (2014)
“Marban and DeFeo, specifically directing them to determine whether the defendant met the criteria of incompetence to proceed under section 916.12, which only relates to mental illness.”
— 916.12(4) — 5 cases
Department of Children and Families v. Clem (2005)
“" See § 916.12(4), Fla. Stat. (2003). Section 916.”
State v. Miranda (2014)
“Marban and DeFeo, specifically directing them to determine whether the defendant met the criteria of incompetence to proceed under section 916.12, which only relates to mental illness.”
Miami-Dade County v. Jones (2001)
“The nature and scope of the competency evaluation is outlined in the following provisions of section 916.12, Florida Statutes (2000). This section is the mirror image of the guidelines and parameters to be applied when rule 3.”
— 916.12(4)(b) — 1 case
— 916.12(5) — 1 case
— 916.12(b) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.