Stanford D. Lewinson v. State
230 So. 3d 901
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Lewinson was charged with home invasion robbery with a firearm, burglary of a dwelling with assault or battery, and aggravated battery with a firearm on a person 65 or older; he does not contest his convictions.
- Before trial, defense counsel moved for a competency hearing; the court appointed Dr. Jeffrey Danziger, who concluded Lewinson was malingering and competent, and the court found him competent.
- During trial, while the jury was being charged, Lewinson had an outburst, said "I just want to kill myself," and allegedly cut himself; the court removed him from the courtroom for the remainder of trial.
- The trial court ordered Lewinson reevaluated for competency prior to sentencing and reappointed Dr. Danziger to examine him.
- Despite ordering reevaluation, the court proceeded to sentence Lewinson to 30 years without receiving the new evaluation report or conducting a competency hearing.
- The Fifth District reversed and remanded for a competency hearing, holding the court erred by sentencing without following Rule 3.210(b) after reasonable grounds to question competency arose.
Issues
| Issue | Lewinson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by sentencing without a competency hearing after ordering reevaluation | Court had reasonable grounds to question Lewinson's competency and thus must hold a competency hearing before sentencing | The court could proceed to sentencing despite ordering reevaluation (implied) | Reversed: once court ordered reevaluation, it was required to follow Rule 3.210(b) and hold a competency hearing before sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Maxwell v. State, 974 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 2008) (trial court must protect due process when competency is at issue)
- Hill v. State, 473 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1985) (due process requires competency to proceed)
- Molina v. State, 946 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 2006) (trial court’s continuing obligation to revisit competency)
- Tingle v. State, 536 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1988) (motion tests whether reasonable grounds exist to believe defendant may be incompetent)
- Scott v. State, 420 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1982) (same standard on reasonable grounds)
- Hunter v. State, 660 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1995) (prior competency finding does not preclude revisiting the issue)
- Nowitzke v. State, 572 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 1990) (new evidence may require reevaluation of competency despite prior finding)
- Carrion v. State, 859 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 2003) (failure to hold competency hearing when reasonable grounds exist is error)
- Culbreath v. State, 903 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (continuing duty to revisit competency)