Deferrell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited
16 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Faretta v. California · Nelson v. State · 149 So. 3d 672 - Bernard J. Dougherty v. State of Florida · 71 So. 3d 848 - McCray v. State · 997 So. 2d 375 - Tennis v. State
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The written reports are advisory to the trial court, which itself retains the responsibility of the decision. Under these circumstances a defendant may not waive his or her right to a competency hearing even if the experts unanimously find the defendant competent to proceed. Two important details arise from this analysis. First, even if the evaluations unanimously agree that the defendant is competent, the court still must conduct a hearing. Second, in response to the State’s argument that [the defendant] waived his right to a hearing by not continuously requesting one ... even an express waiver of a hearing does not comport with the statute. It logically follows then, that an implicit waiver also would not serve to bypass the requirements of the statute.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. A.L.Y. v. State · Baker v. State“(b) Motion for Examination. If, at any material stage of a criminal proceeding, the court of its own motion, or on motion of counsel for the defendant or for the state, has reasonable ground to believe that the defendant is not mentally competent to proceed, the court shall immediately enter its order setting a time for a hearing to determine the defendant’s mental condition, which shall be held no later than 20 days after the date of the filing of the motion, and may order the defendant to be examined by no more than 3 experts, as needed, prior to the date of the hearing. Attorneys for the state and the defendant may be present at any examination ordéred by the court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The court shall first consider the issue of the defendant's competence to proceed. If the court finds the defendant competent to proceed, the court shall enter its order so finding and shall proceed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dortch v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.