Opinion ID: 1772363
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issue 1. failure to order a competency hearing

Text: Lawrence claims that the trial court erred by failing to appoint mental health experts and order an evidentiary competency hearing during the trial. While a State witness was explaining photographs depicting the discovery of Robinson's body, Lawrence's attorney informed the trial court that Lawrence reported having hallucinations and flashbacks. After a break, Lawrence's counsel indicated that Lawrence was prepared to proceed, and the penalty phase resumed. Subsequently, during the playing of one of Lawrence's recorded statements, Lawrence's counsel again informed the trial court that Lawrence indicated he was experiencing hallucinations. The trial court took a break, engaged in a colloquy with Lawrence, and allowed Lawrence to leave the courtroom while his recorded statements were played. No competency hearing was requested. Lawrence asserts in this appeal that the trial court was constitutionally required to order an evidentiary hearing. Decisions regarding competency, including whether a defendant need be given a competency hearing after previously being declared competent to proceed, are within the sound discretion of the trial court. See Bryant v. State, 785 So.2d 422, 427 (Fla.2001); Hunter v. State, 660 So.2d 244, 248 (Fla.1995) (Once a defendant is declared competent ... only if bona fide doubt is raised as to a defendant's mental capacity is the court required to conduct another competency proceeding.). A trial court's decision regarding whether to hold a competency hearing will be upheld absent an abuse of discretion. See Hunter, 660 So.2d at 247. [10] In the instant case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not conducting a competency hearing during the penalty phase. Prior to trial, Lawrence's counsel made several motions to appoint experts to evaluate Lawrence for competency to stand trial. The trial court granted the motions. Those experts did not, however, evaluate Lawrence, because Lawrence decided to offer the guilty plea. Prior to the plea colloquy, the trial court asked Lawrence's counsel, Are you satisfied that given [Lawrence's] current mental situation and any psychological issues there may be that he understands the very serious nature and consequences of this decision [to plead guilty]? Lawrence's counsel answered: Yes, judge. We addressed that in our private consultation with him on the video. And I inquired of him if he was having any hallucinations, either auditory or visual, and having anything to do with his decision to enter a plea of guilty. And he did not. He is not on any medication. We do recognize that our mitigation will establish that there is some problem with his judgment and his ability to reason and think. But we think that he has the capacity to appreciate the effect of his guilty plea upon the penalty phase of the proceeding. Lawrence's counsel further stated, We'll point out that [Lawrence] was evaluated sometime back by Dr. Larson and Dr. Bingham and found competent to proceed. The trial court then engaged Lawrence in an extensive plea colloquy, wherein Lawrence answered the court's questions and informed the court that the decision to plead guilty was his decision. When Lawrence later displayed signs of discomfort in the courtroom, the trial court stopped the proceedings and discussed the matter with both Lawrence's counsel and Lawrence. Lawrence's counsel never requested a competency hearing during the penalty phase and gave all indications that Lawrence was competent to stand trial. Cf. Kilgore v. State, 688 So.2d 895, 899 (Fla.1996) (finding trial court did not err by not holding competency hearing where defense counsel did not request a hearing and defendant had previously been declared competent). The trial judge then thoroughly questioned Lawrence about the nature of the hallucinations and flashbacks. After speaking with Lawrence, the trial court determined that Lawrence was simply uncomfortable hearing certain portions of the evidence. Lawrence has failed to demonstrate that, under these circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion by proceeding with the penalty phase without giving Lawrence a competency hearing.