A.L.Y. v. State
212 So. 3d 399
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Juvenile was on probation for consolidated offenses (resisting without violence, two batteries, disrupting a school function, criminal mischief, domestic battery) and was alleged to have violated probation by committing domestic battery against his mother.
- Juvenile’s counsel filed a motion requesting two expert competency evaluations, citing aberrant courtroom behavior and inability to communicate with counsel; the court appointed two experts.
- DJJ liaison informed the court (outside juvenile’s presence) that doctors had evaluated the juvenile and concluded he was "competent on both cases." The court reset hearings and later said at a status hearing, "He’s competent; ready to go."
- At the final probation violation hearing the juvenile displayed agitated behavior (demanding a DNA test, asserting his mother was not his mother); counsel again voiced concerns about cooperation and competency, but no formal competency hearing occurred on the record.
- The court found the juvenile violated probation and committed him to non-secure residential treatment; the record contains no written competency finding or on-record competency hearing, only the court’s brief oral statements and the liaison’s report.
- Juvenile appealed, arguing the court erred in failing to hold a competency hearing despite reasonable grounds to question competence; the State argued the issue was unpreserved or that the court could rely on experts and oral pronouncement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court err by failing to hold a competency hearing after reasonable grounds existed to doubt juvenile's competence? | Court should have stayed proceedings and held competency hearing because counsel repeatedly raised concerns and juvenile exhibited disturbed conduct. | State: issue unpreserved; alternatively court could rely on experts and its oral statement that juvenile was "competent; ready to go." | Yes. Court had reasonable grounds to doubt competence and was required to hold a hearing; failure to do so reversible. |
| Can expert evaluation reports alone substitute for an on-the-record competency hearing and written court finding? | No; evaluations are advisory and a judge must make an independent competency finding in a hearing and issue an order. | State: unanimous expert reports make a hearing unnecessary; any waiver prevents objection. | No. Even unanimous expert reports do not eliminate the court’s duty to hold a hearing and enter findings; waiver cannot supplant statutory requirements. |
| Does an informal or off-record oral remark ("He’s competent; ready to go") satisfy the requirement for an on-record competency finding? | Juvenile: such remarks are insufficient because no formal hearing, no record of review of reports, and juvenile not present during statement. | State: the court’s oral remark constitutes a competency finding. | No. Court’s brief scheduling/status remark did not constitute an on-the-record, independent competency determination. |
| What remedy is required when competency was inadequately determined? | Juvenile seeks reversal and appropriate remediation (hearing or other relief). | State did not specify alternative beyond asserting no error or waiver. | Reversed and remanded for nunc pro tunc competency determination if feasible; if retrospective hearing cannot assure due process, court must hold a new probation violation hearing after competency is established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Presley v. State, 199 So.3d 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (clarifies that unclear record of judicial review of competency evaluations is insufficient to show an on-the-record competency finding)
- Deferrell v. State, 199 So.3d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (holds that written expert evaluations are advisory; a court must conduct a competency hearing and enter findings even if experts unanimously find competence)
- S.B. v. State, 134 So.3d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (trial judge, not counsel, must make the ultimate competency determination; parties cannot stipulate away the court’s duty)