Opinion ID: 1620060
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Legal Standard for Competency

Text: 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). This Court has explained: It is the duty of the trial court to determine what weight should be given to conflicting testimony. Mason v. State, 597 So.2d 776, 779 (Fla.1992). 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)). Thus, when the experts' reports or testimony conflict regarding competency to proceed, it is the trial court's responsibility to consider all the relevant evidence and resolve such factual disputes. See, e.g., Hardy [v. State], 716 So.2d [761,] at 764 [(Fla.1998)] (citing Hunter, 660 So.2d at 247). Where there is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion of the lower court, [this Court] may not substitute [its] judgment for that of the trial judge. Mason, 597 So.2d at 779. A trial court's decision regarding competency will stand absent a showing of abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Hardy, 716 So.2d at 764; Carter v. State, 576 So.2d 1291, 1292 (Fla.1989). Thus, the issue to be addressed by this Court is whether the circuit court abused its discretion in finding [the defendant] competent to proceed in his postconviction proceedings. In addressing that issue, we are mindful that a trial court's decision does not constitute an abuse of discretion unless no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Scott v. State, 717 So.2d 908, 911 (Fla.1998). Alston v. State, 894 So.2d 46, 54 (Fla.2004); see also Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.211. Upon review of the record, with special attention to the lack of cooperation by Peede, we conclude there is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion of the trial court finding Peede competent to proceed in postconviction proceedings. The trial court entertained multiple motions from the defense regarding Peede's competency, ordered Peede to a psychiatric facility to be observed even after finding him competent, held multiple hearings during which the court discussed the issue with Peede himself, and considered various experts' testimony and written reports. In short, the record supports the trial court's ruling that Peede was competent to proceed in postconviction proceedings, and that any difficulties in communicating with counsel were of Peede's own choosing rather than due to any mental defects.