Opinion ID: 1880670
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: issue 7. competency hearing following guilt phase

Text: Boyd asserts that the trial court erred in not ordering a competency hearing at sentencing. At the start of penalty proceedings, defense counsel requested a withdrawal because Boyd still refused to present any mitigation. [6] Defense counsel indicated that the trial court needed to address Dr. Shapiro's continuing serious concerns about Boyd. Once a defendant is determined competent to stand trial, a presumption of competence attaches to the defendant in later proceedings. Durocher v. Singletary, 623 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla.1993). However, another competency hearing is required if a bona fide question as to the defendant's competency has been raised. Hunter v. State, 660 So.2d 244, 248 (Fla. 1995). We will affirm the trial court's decision absent an abuse of discretion. Id. We hold that the trial court did not err in refusing to order a second competency hearing. The record reflects that the trial judge interviewed Boyd on the issue of what mitigation was to be presented and determined that he understood the potential consequences of his decision, that his decision was deliberate, and that he made the decision freely and voluntarily. The record reflects no new evidence that should have raised a bona fide question as to Boyd's mental capacity sufficient to require another hearing, nor did defense counsel specifically ask for a competency hearing. See Hall v. State, 742 So.2d 225, 230 (Fla.1999) (trial judge had no obligation to order competency hearing or make determination of competency when defendant did not request a hearing, and there was no reason to believe defendant's mental capacity had changed at 1990 resentencing since he had been found competent at 1978 trial).