Court Opinion

ID: 9652636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:29:27.920621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:53.218863
License: Public Domain

*933KAHN, J.,
dissenting.
In the earlier appeal of this ease, a panel of this court provided the following directions to the trial judge:
[W]e REVERSE and REMAND with instructions that the trial judge conduct a hearing on Appellant’s competency to stand trial under Rule 3.210 and deal with Appellant in a manner consistent with the determination made at competency hearing.
Rogers v. State, 954 So.2d 64, 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Although one might argue that the final part of this instruction is somewhat open-ended, I do not see how one can argue that we discharged the defendant, or that we did not expect the trial court to conduct the competency hearing that it in fact conducted. I believe the trial court followed the mandate of this court. I am at a loss to understand the majority’s implication that the lower court had no authority to conduct the competency hearing, having been directed by this court to do so.