Ruling on Teen’s Conviction Is Challenged

MIAMI — The state attorney general’s office will ask the 4th District Court of Appeal on Monday to reconsider a decision throwing out Lionel Tate’s first-degree murder conviction and life sentence in the slaying of a 6-year-old playmate.

Prosecutors say in the motion that the panel incorrectly considered post-verdict arguments and the trial court’s findings.

The state attorney’s office said that asking for a rehearing would allow prosecutors to get the appropriate appellate review if Tate rejects the plea deal they offered him Friday.

Tate rejected the same agreement -- plead guilty to second-degree murder in exchange for three years in a juvenile facility, followed by one year of house arrest and 10 years of probation -- before trial.

The filing, obtained Saturday, says the appellate court improperly merged facts established before trial with arguments laid out during sentencing and appeals in deciding Tate was entitled to a competency hearing.

Prosecutors also argue that Tate spent hundreds of hours with psychologists and psychiatrists before he was tried, and that no one ever raised concerns about his competency then.

The trial judge, acting Broward Circuit Judge Joel T. Lazarus, never questioned Tate’s competency, the filing stated.

“These facts raised no red flags and do not establish reasonable grounds to question Tate’s competency,” prosecutors say in the motion.

Tate, now 16, was convicted of beating 6-year-old Tiffany Eunick to death in 1999 and was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

But on Dec. 10, the 4th District Court of Appeal overturned the conviction and sentence, saying Lazarus should have ordered tests to check whether the teen was competent to stand trial. In its ruling, the appeals court cited Tate’s youth, immaturity and the fact that it was his first arrest.

The motion to be filed Monday also says that contrary to the appellate court’s ruling, the standard for competency does not increase “as the potential sentence becomes longer.”

The appellate court discounted the trial court’s assessment that Tate had the ability to understand the plea offer before trial, the filing says. Prosecutors argue that the panel is suggesting Tate was incompetent because he rejected a plea deal that would have sent him to prison for three years, and instead chose to take his chances at trial.

Tate’s attorney, Richard Rosenbaum, said he doubted the case would be reheard.

“My preliminary review of the motion is that it is procedurally deficient and meritless based on the grounds they allege,” Rosenbaum said. “This does not have a real good chance of being reheard because it was a 3-0 decision. Even most 2-1 decisions don’t get reheard if they don’t have good grounds.”

Ken Padowitz, who prosecuted Tate and now represents Eunick’s mother, Deweese Eunick-Paul, agreed Saturday with prosecutors, saying the appellate court’s decision was “not legally correct.”

“I want them to correctly apply the law, whether that means to clarify their opinion or reverse their reversal,” Padowitz said. “Whether or not Lionel Tate accepts the plea offer, the appellate court should correct the decision so that the law is not misapplied in future cases.”

Despite the motion, Eunick-Paul supports the renewed plea offer to Tate, Padowitz said. Tate already has served almost all the time required by the plea agreement and, if he accepts it, would be eligible for release from the juvenile facility in late January. He would spend another year confined to his home.

“I can assure you Lionel won’t make the wrong decision,” Rosenbaum said. “There are some things that need to be worked out, but he pretty much told me where he wants this to go.”