3.800(b), arguing the imposition of a minimum mandatory term of life is not authorized by section 775.087(2)(a)3. The trial court denied the motion. ANALYSIS We review the trial court’s interpretation of the Rules of Criminal Procedure de novo. See Jones v. State, 966 So.2d 319 (Fla.2007). If a trial court, upon motion of defense counsel, has reasonable ground to believe that the defendant is not mentally competent to proceed, the court “shall order the defendant to be examined by no more than 3, nor fewer than 2, experts prior to the date of [a competency] hearing.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.210(b). The State does not question the general rule that a trial judge errs where she fails to appoint at least two competen cy experts. See D’Oleo-Valdez v. State, 531 So.2d 1347, 1348 (Fla.1988) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, appellant does not dispute that
holding there was no doubt that the trial judge erred in failing to appoint at least two experts holding that appellant was deprived of a fair trial where the jury was instructed in such a way that it was not required to find at least two elements of the offense of capital murder to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt holding plaintiffs waived their right to appellate review of the admission of an experts testimony by failing to object to it at trial holding that the trial court erred in failing to address holiday visitation holding that because judge who was substituted for posttrial motions erred in finding that trial court judge made mistake of law grant of new trial was error