Rule 3.203. Defendant’s Intellectual Disability As A Bar to Imposition of The Death Penalty
(a) Scope. This rule applies in all first-degree murder cases in which the state attorney has not waived the death penalty on the record and the defendant’s intellectual disability becomes an issue.
(b) Definition of Intellectual Disability. As used in this rule, the term “intellectual disability” means significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the period from conception to age 18. The term “significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning,” for the purpose of this rule, means performance that is two or more standard deviations from the mean score on a standardized intelligence test authorized by the Department of Children and Family Services in rule 65G-4.011 of the Florida Administrative Code. The term “adaptive behavior,” for the purpose of this rule, means the effectiveness or degree with which an individual meets the standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected of his or her age, cultural group, and community.
(c) Motion for Determination of Intellectual Disability as a Bar to Execution: Contents; Procedures.
(1) A defendant who intends to raise intellectual disability as a bar to execution shall file a written motion to establish intellectual disability as a bar to execution with the court.
(2) The motion shall state that the defendant is intellectually disabled and, if the defendant has been tested, evaluated, or examined by one or more experts, the names and addresses of the experts. Copies of reports containing the opinions of any experts named in the motion shall be attached to the motion. The court shall appoint an expert chosen by the state attorney if the state attorney so requests. The expert shall promptly test, evaluate, or examine the defendant and shall submit a written report of any findings to the parties and the court.
(3) If the defendant has not been tested, evaluated, or examined by one or more experts, the motion shall state that fact and the court shall appoint two experts who shall promptly test, evaluate, or examine the defendant and shall submit a written report of any findings to the parties and the court.
(4) Attorneys for the state and defendant may be present at the examinations conducted by court-appointed experts.
(5) If the defendant refuses to be examined or fully cooperate with the court appointed experts or the state’s expert, the court may, in the court’s discretion:
(A) order the defense to allow the court-appointed experts to review all mental health reports, tests, and evaluations by the defendant’s expert;
(B) prohibit the defense experts from testifying concerning any tests, evaluations, or examinations of the defendant regarding the defendant’s intellectual disability; or
(C) order such relief as the court determines to be appropriate.
(d) Time for filing Motion for Determination of Intellectual Disability as a Bar to Execution. The motion for a determination of intellectual disability as a bar to execution shall be filed not later than 90 days prior to trial, or at such time as is ordered by the court.
(e) Hearing on Motion to Determine Intellectual Disability. The circuit court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion for a determination of intellectual disability. At the hearing, the court shall consider the findings of the experts and all other evidence on the issue of whether the defendant is intellectually disabled. The court shall enter a written order prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty and setting forth the court’s specific findings in support of the court’s determination if the court finds that the defendant is intellectually disabled as defined in subdivision (b) of this rule. The court shall stay the proceedings for 30 days from the date of rendition of the order prohibiting the death penalty or, if a motion for rehearing is filed, for 30 days following the rendition of the order denying rehearing, to allow the state the opportunity to appeal the order. If the court determines that the defendant has not established intellectual disability, the court shall enter a written order setting forth the court’s specific findings in support of the court’s determination.
(f) Waiver. A claim authorized under this rule is waived if not filed in accord with the time requirements for filing set out in this rule, unless good cause is shown for the failure to comply with the time requirements.
(g) Finding of Intellectual Disability; Order to Proceed. If, after the evidence presented, the court is of the opinion that the defendant is intellectually disabled, the court shall order the case to proceed without the death penalty as an issue.
(h) Appeal. An appeal may be taken by the state if the court enters an order finding that the defendant is intellectually disabled, which will stay further proceedings in the trial court until a decision on appeal is rendered. Appeals are to proceed according to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c).
(i) Motion to Establish Intellectual Disability as a Bar to Execution; Stay of Execution. The filing of a motion to establish intellectual disability as a bar to execution shall not stay further proceedings without a separate order staying execution.
RULE 3.210. INCOMPETENCE TO PROCEED: PROCEDURE FOR RAISING THE ISSUE
(a) Proceedings Barred during Incompetency. A person accused of an offense or a violation of probation or community control who is mentally incompetent to proceed at any material stage of a criminal proceeding shall not be proceeded against while incompetent.
(1) A “material stage of a criminal proceeding” shall include the trial of the case, pretrial hearings involving questions of fact on which the defendant might be expected to testify, entry of a plea, violation of probation or violation of community control proceedings, sentencing, hearings on issues regarding a defendant’s failure to comply with court orders or conditions, or other matters where the mental competence of the defendant is necessary for a just resolution of the issues being considered. The terms “competent,” “competence,” “incompetent,” and “incompetence,” as used in rules 3.210–3.219, shall refer to mental competence or incompetence to proceed at a material stage of a criminal proceeding.
(2) The incompetence of the defendant shall not preclude such judicial action, hearings on motions of the parties, discovery proceedings, or other procedures that do not require the personal participation of the defendant.
(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 ordered by the court.
(1) A written motion for the examination made by counsel for the defendant shall contain a certificate of counsel that the motion is made in good faith and on reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant is incompetent to proceed. To the extent that it does not invade the lawyer-client privilege, the motion shall contain a recital of the specific observations of and conversations with the defendant that have formed the basis for the motion.
(2) A written motion for the examination made by counsel for the state shall contain a certificate of counsel that the motion is made in good faith and on reasonable grounds to believe the defendant is incompetent to proceed and shall include a recital of the specific facts that have formed the basis for the motion, including a recitation of the observations of and statements of the defendant that have caused the state to file the motion.
(3) If the defendant has been released on bail or other release provision, the court may order the defendant to appear at a designated place for evaluation at a specific time as a condition of such release. If the court determines that the defendant will not submit to the evaluation or that the defendant is not likely to appear for the scheduled evaluation, the court may order the defendant taken into custody until the determination of the defendant’s competency to proceed. A motion made for evaluation under this subdivision shall not otherwise affect the defendant’s right to release.
(4) The order appointing experts shall:
(A) identify the purpose or purposes of the evaluation, including the nature of the material proceeding, and specify the area or areas of inquiry that should be addressed by the evaluator;
(B) specify the legal criteria to be applied; and
(C) specify the date by which the report should be submitted and to whom the report should be submitted.