despite scoring a minimum of sixty-nine years and a maximum of 735. So the trial court conducted a plea colloquy of sorts, but did not conduct a competency hearing. The trial court ultimately denied the motion for a second competency evaluation. Defense counsel filed a motion seeking to renew the request for competency evaluation without further arguments and in order to preserve the issue for appeal, which was denied. A court’s decision as to whether a competency hearing or a new evaluation is necessary is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Rodgers v. State, 3 So.3d 1127, 1132 (Fla.2009) (providing standard of review for denial of hearing); see Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.210(b) (providing that the court “may order” examination, by experts); Boggs v. State, 575 So.2d 1274, 1275 (Fla. 1991) (<HOLDING>). However, if a “reasonable ground to believe
holding that previous ordered entered with prejudice did not have preclusive effect recognizing trial court should not weigh evidence holding that an additional remedy does not constitute an additional requirement holding that trial court should have ordered additional evaluations holding that the trial court should have dismissed the employees breach of contract claim