221 So. 3d 637
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Appellant Edna Baker's counsel filed a motion asserting "reasonable grounds" to believe Baker was incompetent and requested an expert evaluation, expressly waiving the 20‑day hearing requirement in the motion.
- The trial court ordered a competency examination and appointed a doctor, noting the 20‑day hearing provision but recording the defendant’s waiver in the order.
- No competency hearing was scheduled or conducted, and the record contains no written judicial finding as to Baker’s competency.
- The case proceeded to trial; Baker was convicted of burglary and grand theft and sentenced to 15 years.
- On appeal the court considered whether the trial court’s failure to hold the mandatory competency hearing under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.210(b) required reversal/remand and whether a nunc pro tunc competency determination was possible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an express waiver of the 20‑day competency hearing satisfies Rule 3.210(b) | Baker (plaintiff) waived the 20‑day hearing in her motion, so no mandatory hearing was required | State argued waiver and/or expert reports showing competence make a hearing unnecessary | Court held waiver cannot circumvent Rule 3.210(b); hearing is mandatory when reasonable grounds exist |
| Whether a hearing was required after the court ordered an evaluation | Baker claimed waiver eliminated the timing requirement | State argued the appointment/order did not compel a full hearing absent insistence | Court found the court’s order appointing experts itself established reasonable grounds, triggering the hearing mandate |
| Whether a nunc pro tunc (retroactive) competency determination can remedy the defect | Baker urged that nunc pro tunc review could validate proceedings | State sought retroactive inquiry if appropriate | Court directed remand for a nunc pro tunc determination only if contemporaneous evaluations or witnesses are available to permit a due‑process retrospective finding; otherwise new proceedings are required |
| Remedy when no contemporaneous competency finding or record exists | Baker argued trial should stand if competent in fact | State argued relief can be limited to nunc pro tunc inquiry | Court reversed convictions and remanded: if nunc pro tunc is possible, enter written order; if not, adjudicate current competency and, if competent, grant new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Deferrell v. State, 199 So.3d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (even unanimous expert reports do not relieve court of conducting independent competency hearing)
- A.L.Y. v. State, 212 So.3d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (failure to hold competency hearing requires reversal)
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So.3d 672 (Fla.) (nunc pro tunc competency evaluation permitted only with sufficient contemporaneous testimony/evidence)
- Presley v. State, 199 So.3d 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (court may decide competency on written reports but must make independent finding and enter written order)
- Mason v. State, 489 So.2d 734 (Fla. 1986) (retroactive competency inquiry requires contemporaneous observations/evidence)
- Monte v. State, 51 So.3d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (when court has reasonable grounds to believe defendant is not competent, it must conduct a competency hearing)