Antonio Jermaine Presley v. State of Florida
199 So. 3d 1014
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Antonio Presley pleaded no contest in November 2012 to charges in three cases, agreeing to substantial assistance and facing a possible 55-year maximum; plea form noted prior bipolar treatment.
- After plea but before sentencing, two experts found Presley incompetent and the trial court adjudicated him incompetent and committed him to DCF in June 2013.
- In October 2013 a DCF psychologist (Dr. Buse) reported Presley was restored to competency; DCF sent a Notice of Restoration and a competency report to the trial court and arranged transport for a status hearing.
- At an October 2013 status hearing the court said it was advised DCF restored competency; defense requested continuances for re-evaluation and investigation of competence at plea time; continuances were granted through January 2014.
- Defense later moved to withdraw the plea alleging he was paranoid schizophrenic and not medicated when he pleaded; the court held a hearing on that motion (with lay and expert testimony about past mental illness) and denied the motion, then sentenced Presley to 25 years.
- The Fourth District reversed, holding the trial court committed fundamental error by proceeding on the motion and sentencing without first conducting an independent competency hearing (or an agreed process to decide competency on written reports).
Issues
| Issue | Presley’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by proceeding on motion to withdraw plea and sentencing without a competency hearing after prior incompetency adjudication | Court was required to hold a new hearing to adjudicate competency before proceeding; failure was fundamental error | No error: Presley had been restored to competency, court reviewed report, defense agreed, and court’s remarks constituted an oral finding of competency | Reversed: court erred; it must make an independent competence determination (hearing or agreed written-report process) before proceeding |
| Whether DCF’s restoration notice or defense counsel’s statements suffice as a judicial finding of competency | Restoration by DCF and counsel’s representations insufficient to establish judicial finding | Restoration notice and counsel’s statements showed competency | Held: DCF determination and counsel’s statements do not substitute for required judicial hearing/finding |
| Whether a status hearing comment can serve as a competency determination | Comment acknowledging DCF’s advice is not an oral finding of competency | The court’s acknowledgement was effectively a finding | Held: mere acknowledgement is insufficient absent explicit finding after appropriate procedure |
| Whether competency can be determined retroactively (nunc pro tunc) | If contemporaneous witnesses/reports exist, court may make nunc pro tunc determination | N/A (court must assess on remand) | Held: Court must decide on remand whether nunc pro tunc competency determination is possible; if not, new hearings required |
Key Cases Cited
- Plott v. State, 148 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 2014) (pure questions of law reviewed de novo)
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014) (rules for competency hearings; written reports may suffice only by agreement)
- Samson v. State, 853 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (presumption that one adjudicated incompetent remains so until judicially restored)
- Roman v. State, 163 So. 3d 749 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (court must hold a hearing when notified defendant regained competence)
- Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1971) (competency may be decided on written reports with parties’ agreement)
- Erickson v. State, 965 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (DCF determination alone does not change defendant’s legal status)
- Merriell v. State, 169 So. 3d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (status hearing can suffice when court reviews written report and makes independent finding)
- Hunter v. State, 174 So. 3d 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (oral determination at status hearing sufficient where court considered reports and made affirmative finding)
- S.B. v. State, 134 So. 3d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (parties’ mere stipulation to competency or to report’s conclusions without agreement to decide on written report is insufficient)
- Shakes v. State, 185 So. 3d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (trial court may not rely solely on defense counsel’s representation of competency)
- Macaluso v. State, 12 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (court improperly decided competency based only on counsel’s statement)
- Belizaire v. State, 188 So. 3d 933 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (on remand court must determine whether nunc pro tunc competency determination or new trial is required)