NICHOLAS RAY MALICOAT v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 2, 2023
Docket22-0952
StatusPublished

This text of NICHOLAS RAY MALICOAT v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA (NICHOLAS RAY MALICOAT v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
NICHOLAS RAY MALICOAT v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, (Fla. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed August 2, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-0952 Lower Tribunal No. 19-627-A-K ________________

Nicholas Ray Malicoat, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Mark H. Jones, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Byron v. State, 273 So. 3d 1091, 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)

(quoting Thompson v. State, 88 So. 3d 312, 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)) (“Not

every manifestation of mental illness demonstrates incompetence to stand

trial; rather, the evidence must indicate a present inability to assist counsel

or understand the charges. Neither low intelligence, mental deficiency, nor

bizarre, volatile, and irrational behavior can be equated with mental

incompetence to stand trial.”); Cotton v. State, 177 So. 3d 666, 668 (Fla. 1st

DCA 2015) (“If the trial court does not have sufficient grounds to believe that

the defendant may lack competency, there is no obligation to hold a

competency hearing.”); Andrews v. State, 916 So. 2d 964, 966 (Fla. 5th DCA

2005) (“Defense counsel never asked for a competency exam, so, we must

assume that counsel believed [defendant] to be competent.”); Chery v. State,

642 So. 2d 1161, 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“The trial court did not err in

failing to conduct an inquiry concerning the defendant’s mental competency

to stand trial as no showing of mental incompetency was ever made below,

and no defense request for such an inquiry was ever made below.”).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Carlos D. Cotton v. State of Florida
177 So. 3d 666 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Byron v. State
273 So. 3d 1091 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019)
Thompson v. State
88 So. 3d 312 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Chery v. State
642 So. 2d 1161 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Andrews v. State
916 So. 2d 964 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
NICHOLAS RAY MALICOAT v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicholas-ray-malicoat-v-the-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2023.