Opinion ID: 1620060
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Peede's Competency at the Time of Trial

Text: Peede next argues that he was not mentally competent to stand trial in 1984. The trial court denied Peede's claim as wholly without merit because even accepting their testimony, the defense mental health experts testified that Peede's delusional disorder was narrowly confined to the single topic of his former wives being unfaithful to him, rather than his ability to assist counsel. The test for whether a defendant is competent to stand trial is whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understandingand whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960). The reports of experts are `merely advisory to the [trial court], which itself retains the responsibility of the decision.' Hunter v. State, 660 So.2d 244, 247 (Fla. 1995) (quoting Muhammad v. State, 494 So.2d 969, 973 (Fla.1986)). The trial court must consider all evidence relative to competence and its decision will stand absent a showing of abuse of discretion. Id. (citing Carter v. State, 576 So.2d 1291, 1292 (Fla.1989)). Trial counsel DuRocher testified that he never had a client as difficult as Peede, but trial counsel Bronson testified that he never thought Peede was insane or delusional. Dr. Kirkland was first appointed to evaluate Peede's competency prior to trial in 1983. He found that Peede had a paranoid disorder but was not incompetent to stand trial. The original trial judge, Michael Cycmanick, testified at the evidentiary hearing that Peede appeared to be acting freely, voluntarily, and with a clear head when he decided to absent himself from trial. Judge Cycmanick had been involved with competency issues many times before Peede's trial both as a judge and as a defense attorney. The defense experts at the postconviction evidentiary hearing testified that Peede's delusional disorder was narrowly circumscribed to his belief that his former wives were not faithful to him, and that Peede knew right from wrong. Dr. Fisher testified that Peede only freezes when the subject of the murder comes up. Further, Dr. Merin, the State's expert, specifically testified that Peede was competent to stand trial. Based on this evidence, we conclude the trial court properly denied this claim after determining that the issue had been addressed in the earlier trial proceedings, and after the evidentiary hearing on this issue. Furthermore, based on this finding, there was no error in the determination that Peede's counsel was not ineffective in presenting the issue of competency to the original trial court.