Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 916.12 (2025)
Mental competence to proceed.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
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, 39 So. 3d 1234 (Fla. 2010).
Caraballo v. State, 39 So. 3d 1234 (Fla. 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, 970 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 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, 494 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 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.”
Dep't of Child. & Families v. Clem, 903 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). “" See § 916.12(4), Fla. Stat. (2003). Section 916.”
McCray v. State, 71 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 2011). “2d 824 (1960)); § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (2008); Fla. R.Crim.”
Robert L. Rumph v. State, 217 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). “2d 824 (1960)); accord § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (2014); Whitfield v.”
Hertz v. State, 803 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2001). “2d 824 (1960)); see also § 916.12(1), Fla.Stat. (1993); Fla. *640 R.”
State v. Miranda, 137 So. 3d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 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, 660 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1995). “2d 824, 825 (1960); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Fla.R.Crim.”
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Jones, 793 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 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, 800 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2001). “2d 824, 825 (1960); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Fla. R.Crim.”
Mora v. State, 814 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2002). “2d 824 (1960); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Fla. R.Crim.”
Hernandez-Alberto v. State, 889 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 2004). “2d 824 (1960); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Fla. R.Crim.”
Bryant v. State, 785 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 2001). “2d 824 (1960)); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Fla. R.Crim.”
Alston v. State, 894 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2004). “2d 824 (1960)); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (2003); Fla. R.Crim.”
Hernandez-Alberto v. State, 126 So. 3d 193 (Fla. 2013). “12(3), Florida Statutes (2010), provides that an expert examining a defendant for competence to proceed shall consider the defendant’s capacity to appreciate the charges or allegations against him; appreciate the range and nature of possible penalties; understand the adversarial…”
Dep't of Child. & Families v. Lotton, 172 So. 3d 983 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). “To make this determination, section 916.12(2) states that the defendant shall be evaluated by no fewer than two experts before the court takes any action under chapter 916 or the rules of criminal procedure.”
Carter v. State, 706 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1997). “1980); § 916.12, Fla. Stat. (1995). This principle of law, while rooted in the common law, ensures a defendant's due process right to a fair trial.”
Hardy v. State, 716 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1998). “2d 824 (1960); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Fla. R.Crim.”
In Re Amend. to Fla. Rules of Cr. Proc., 606 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1992). “§ 916.12] is a companion statute relating to mental competence to stand trial.”
Ozbourn v. State, 651 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). “§ 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1991). [3] A person actually "detained by a facility .”
Harris v. State, 864 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). “2d 824, 825 (1960); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Fla.R.Crim.”
Quawn M. Franklin v. State of Florida, 137 So. 3d 969 (Fla. 2014). “1998)); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (2012); Fla. R.Crim.”
Castro v. State, 744 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1999). “2d 824 (1960); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Fla. R.Crim.”
Pericola v. State, 499 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). “Section 916.12(1), Florida Statutes (1985); Rule 3.”
Manuel v. State, 162 So. 3d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). “These evaluations will be conducted in compliance with section 916.12, Florida Statutes (2010) and Rule 3.”
Douse v. State, 930 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). “While it may be advisable to have defendant evaluated once again for competency under section 916.12(2), the previous evaluating doctors both opined that this defendant was in need of treatment available only through commitment.”
Jones v. State, 465 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). “There 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…”
Reeves v. State, 987 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). “2d 824 (1960)); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Fla. R.Crim.”
Christopher Schofield v. Grady C. Judd, Sheriff of Polk Cnty., 268 So. 3d 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019). “See generally § 916.12. Florida statutes also provide a mechanism through which an incompetent defendant may be committed and provided treatment for the purpose of restoring his or her competency.”
Florida Dep't of Corr. v. Watts, 800 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 2001). “3 The trial court found that Watts satisfied the criteria for involuntary hospitalization as set forth in section 916.12, Florida Statutes (1999), 4 and section 394.”
Horton v. Judd, 80 So. 3d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). “§ 916.12(2). If a felony defendant is adjudged to be incompetent, section 916.”
Gatlin v. State, 79 So. 3d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). “§ 916.12(2). In accordance with section 916.”
STATE, DHRS v. Bentley, 617 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). “See § 916.12. [3] Although it is not controlling since it was never adopted by the supreme court, [4] we additionally point out that the Committee Note to the relevant criminal rules states that the circuit court, and not an administrative hearing officer, must remain involved…”
Martinez v. State, 712 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). “" See § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1995); Fla. R.Crim.”
Dep't of Child. & Families v. Rodriguez, 267 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019). “The trial court properly ordered an evaluation pursuant to section 916.12, Florida Statutes (2018), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.”
Mesac Damas v. State of Florida &Mesac Damas v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Fla. 2025). “The Court found Damas competent to proceed, noting that having a mental illness or displaying bizarre behavior is not equivalent to incompetence under section 916.12, Florida Statutes, or Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.”
Florida v. Garrett, 454 U.S. 1004 (1982). “77-312 (current version at Fla. Stat. §916.12 (2) (Supp. 1980)). At this point, the tactics of the defense counsel and the reasoning of the Florida Court of Appeal diverged sharply from this Court’s Jackson opinion.”
Sampson v. State, 88 So. 3d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). “” § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). Rule 3.210 also states that, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant is not competent, the trial court may order the defendant to be examined by up to three experts prior to a competency hearing.”
Hill v. State of Florida (Fla. 2d DCA 2026). “See § 916.12; Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.210-.212. These protections extend not only to trial, but to additional, ancillary proceedings.”
Rodriguez v. State, 112 So. 3d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).
Thomas v. State, 93 So. 3d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).
State of Florida v. Charles Morris (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). “See § 916.12(4), Fla. Stat. (2019); Fla. R. Crim.”
Baranko v. State, 428 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
Gonzalez v. State, 476 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
Dep't of Child. & Families v. State of Florida & William Elvey (Fla. 5th DCA 2024).
Miller v. State, 194 So. 3d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).
DCF v. Kamaluddin, 240 So. 3d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).
Broward Behavioral Health Coalition, Inc. v. Mertileine Genestant, 260 So. 3d 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
ALI MARINO v. STATE OF FLORIDA & GREGORY TONY, as Sheriff of Broward Cnty. (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). “See § 916.12(4), Fla. Stat. (2018); Fla. R. Crim.”
Barry A. Noetzel v. State of Florida (Fla. 2021).
Dep't of Child. & Families v. Rodriguez, 267 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).
Mansell v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Hillsborough Cnty.) (M.D. Fla. 2021).
Loftin v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (M.D. Fla. 2022).
Solano v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (St. Johns Cnty.) (M.D. Fla. 2023).
Gonzalez v. Metro West Det. Ctr. (S.D. Fla. 2020).
Leo L. Boatman v. State of Florida (Fla. 2024). “Werner addressed the statutorily enumerated competence factors in section 916.12(3), Florida Statutes (2019).”
Beebe v. Hanks (Pinellas Cnty.) (M.D. Fla. 2022).
Daryl McGee v. State of Florida (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).
Dep't of Child. & Families v. State of Florida, Sardo (Fla. 2d DCA 2026).
Quawn M. Franklin v. Michael D. Crews, etc. (Fla. 2014).
In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Crim. Procedure - 2023 Legislation (Fla. 2023). “211 are amended with language from the statutory changes to section 916.12(4)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes.”
Laster v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.(Polk Cnty.) (M.D. Fla. 2025).
In Re Amendments to Rules of Juv. Procedure, 952 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2007). “But see § 916.12(5), Fla. Stat. (2006) (defining "psychotropic medication" as "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,…”
Sally v. State, 489 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
Douse v. Bradshaw, 938 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
— 916.12(1) — 34 cases
Caraballo v. State, 39 So. 3d 1234 (Fla. 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, 494 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 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, 71 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 2011). “2d 824 (1960)); § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (2008); Fla. R.Crim.”
Robert L. Rumph v. State, 217 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). “2d 824 (1960)); accord § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (2014); Whitfield v.”
Hertz v. State, 803 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2001). “2d 824 (1960)); see also § 916.12(1), Fla.Stat. (1993); Fla. *640 R.”
Hunter v. State, 660 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1995). “2d 824, 825 (1960); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Fla.R.Crim.”
Evans v. State, 800 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2001). “2d 824, 825 (1960); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Fla. R.Crim.”
Mora v. State, 814 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2002). “2d 824 (1960); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Fla. R.Crim.”
Hernandez-Alberto v. State, 889 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 2004). “2d 824 (1960); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Fla. R.Crim.”
Bryant v. State, 785 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 2001). “2d 824 (1960)); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Fla. R.Crim.”
Alston v. State, 894 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2004). “2d 824 (1960)); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (2003); Fla. R.Crim.”
Hardy v. State, 716 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1998). “2d 824 (1960); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Fla. R.Crim.”
Ozbourn v. State, 651 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). “§ 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1991). [3] A person actually "detained by a facility .”
Hernandez-Alberto v. State, 126 So. 3d 193 (Fla. 2013). “12(3), Florida Statutes (2010), provides that an expert examining a defendant for competence to proceed shall consider the defendant’s capacity to appreciate the charges or allegations against him; appreciate the range and nature of possible penalties; understand the adversarial…”
State v. Miranda, 137 So. 3d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 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.”
Harris v. State, 864 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). “2d 824, 825 (1960); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Fla.R.Crim.”
Quawn M. Franklin v. State of Florida, 137 So. 3d 969 (Fla. 2014). “1998)); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (2012); Fla. R.Crim.”
Castro v. State, 744 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1999). “2d 824 (1960); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Fla. R.Crim.”
Pericola v. State, 499 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). “Section 916.12(1), Florida Statutes (1985); Rule 3.”
Jones v. State, 465 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). “There 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…”
Reeves v. State, 987 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). “2d 824 (1960)); see also § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Fla. R.Crim.”
Martinez v. State, 712 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). “" See § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1995); Fla. R.Crim.”
STATE, DHRS v. Bentley, 617 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). “See § 916.12. [3] Although it is not controlling since it was never adopted by the supreme court, [4] we additionally point out that the Committee Note to the relevant criminal rules states that the circuit court, and not an administrative hearing officer, must remain involved…”
Sampson v. State, 88 So. 3d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). “” § 916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). Rule 3.210 also states that, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant is not competent, the trial court may order the defendant to be examined by up to three experts prior to a competency hearing.”
Rodriguez v. State, 112 So. 3d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).
Thomas v. State, 93 So. 3d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).
Baranko v. State, 428 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
Dep't of Child. & Families v. State of Florida & William Elvey (Fla. 5th DCA 2024).
Mansell v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Hillsborough Cnty.) (M.D. Fla. 2021).
Loftin v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (M.D. Fla. 2022).
Beebe v. Hanks (Pinellas Cnty.) (M.D. Fla. 2022).
Hill v. State of Florida (Fla. 2d DCA 2026). “See § 916.12; Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.210-.212. These protections extend not only to trial, but to additional, ancillary proceedings.”
Quawn M. Franklin v. Michael D. Crews, etc. (Fla. 2014).
Mesac Damas v. State of Florida &Mesac Damas v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Fla. 2025). “The Court found Damas competent to proceed, noting that having a mental illness or displaying bizarre behavior is not equivalent to incompetence under section 916.12, Florida Statutes, or Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.”
— 916.12(2) — 10 cases
In Re Commitment of Reilly, 970 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 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.”
Dep't of Child. & Families v. Lotton, 172 So. 3d 983 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). “To make this determination, section 916.12(2) states that the defendant shall be evaluated by no fewer than two experts before the court takes any action under chapter 916 or the rules of criminal procedure.”
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Jones, 793 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 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, 930 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). “While it may be advisable to have defendant evaluated once again for competency under section 916.12(2), the previous evaluating doctors both opined that this defendant was in need of treatment available only through commitment.”
Horton v. Judd, 80 So. 3d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). “§ 916.12(2). If a felony defendant is adjudged to be incompetent, section 916.”
Gatlin v. State, 79 So. 3d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). “§ 916.12(2). In accordance with section 916.”
Gonzalez v. State, 476 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
DCF v. Kamaluddin, 240 So. 3d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).
Hill v. State of Florida (Fla. 2d DCA 2026). “See § 916.12; Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.210-.212. These protections extend not only to trial, but to additional, ancillary proceedings.”
Douse v. Bradshaw, 938 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
— 916.12(3) — 5 cases
Hernandez-Alberto v. State, 126 So. 3d 193 (Fla. 2013). “12(3), Florida Statutes (2010), provides that an expert examining a defendant for competence to proceed shall consider the defendant’s capacity to appreciate the charges or allegations against him; appreciate the range and nature of possible penalties; understand the adversarial…”
State v. Miranda, 137 So. 3d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 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.”
Dep't of Child. & Families v. Lotton, 172 So. 3d 983 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). “To make this determination, section 916.12(2) states that the defendant shall be evaluated by no fewer than two experts before the court takes any action under chapter 916 or the rules of criminal procedure.”
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Jones, 793 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 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.”
Leo L. Boatman v. State of Florida (Fla. 2024). “Werner addressed the statutorily enumerated competence factors in section 916.12(3), Florida Statutes (2019).”
— 916.12(3)(a) — 1 case
State v. Miranda, 137 So. 3d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 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
Dep't of Child. & Families v. Clem, 903 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). “" See § 916.12(4), Fla. Stat. (2003). Section 916.”
State v. Miranda, 137 So. 3d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 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 Cnty. v. Jones, 793 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 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.”
State of Florida v. Charles Morris (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). “See § 916.12(4), Fla. Stat. (2019); Fla. R. Crim.”
ALI MARINO v. STATE OF FLORIDA & GREGORY TONY, as Sheriff of Broward Cnty. (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). “See § 916.12(4), Fla. Stat. (2018); Fla. R. Crim.”
— 916.12(4)(b) — 1 case
In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Crim. Procedure - 2023 Legislation (Fla. 2023). “211 are amended with language from the statutory changes to section 916.12(4)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes.”
— 916.12(5) — 1 case
In Re Amendments to Rules of Juv. Procedure, 952 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2007). “But see § 916.12(5), Fla. Stat. (2006) (defining "psychotropic medication" as "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,…”
— 916.12(b) — 1 case
In Re Amend. to Fla. Rules of Cr. Proc., 606 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1992). “§ 916.12] is a companion statute relating to mental competence to stand trial.”
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.