TITA v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that the relevant statute and rule of criminal procedure were amended to remove the requirement for a court to appoint no-fewer than two experts
• “[N]othing in the statutes or rules requires a court to appoint a specific number of experts to evaluate a defendant’s mental competency.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

• KERVEN CHARLES v. STATE OF FLORIDA
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2017-07-12· cited 16×

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Dusky v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1960-04-18· cited 3,197×
• Drope v. Missouri
  Supreme Court· 1975-02-19· cited 2,695×
• Bared & Co., Inc. v. McGuire
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1996-03-20· cited 128×
• Scott v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1982-09-30· cited 43×
• D'Oleo-Valdez v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1988-10-13· cited 22×
• In Re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2009-11-19· cited 13×
• Donaldson v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2005-02-28· cited 5×