Bernard J. Dougherty v. State of Florida, 149 So. 3d 672

Dougherty was charged with resisting an officer with violence and acquiring a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge, with charges pursued from March 2000.
The trial court appointed three experts for a competency determination and Dougherty was later declared incompetent in August 2002 and committed to DCF, though DCF later determined he no longer met commitment criteria.
In early 2003, Dougherty was considered for transfer; a status hearing on competency occurred, and the court scheduled a competency review.
On July 10, 2003, defense counsel moved for competency determination; three experts were appointed and ordered to prepare reports; on September 10, 2003 a competency hearing occurred with defense stipulating Dougherty was competent.
The court did not issue a written competency order, yet the case proceeded to a two-day jury trial resulting in guilty verdicts and consecutive sentences; the trial court later resentenced following an appeal.
Dougherty challenged the competency procedures on appeal, arguing lack of a written order and improper hearing; the Fifth District partially reversed on sentencing issues, prompting further review by this Court for conflict with Macaluso.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a defendant can stipulate to competency	Dougherty argues stipulation cannot cure failure to independently determine competency.	Macaluso and Dougherty’s position that stipulation cannot replace a formal competency hearing.	The court holds that a defendant cannot stipulate to competency and a written order must exist if competent.
Whether trial court must issue a written competency order	Dougherty contends lack of written order undermines validity of competency finding.	State contends oral pronouncements suffice when supported by record.	Written order is required when a finding of competency is made.
Remedy for failure to follow competency procedures	Remedy should be a new trial or nunc pro tunc competency determination depending on circumstances.	Remedy should ensure due process by proper retroactive or retrial if needed.	Remedy depends on circumstances; may be a new trial or nunc pro tunc hearing.
Procedural bar to Dougherty’s competency claim	Issue raised on direct appeal; otherwise procedurally barred from postconviction review.	Argues conflict with Macaluso requires review despite procedural posture.	Competency claim is procedurally barred from direct appeal review, but conflict is acknowledged and remedied by affirming Macaluso consistent with this opinion.

Macaluso v. State, 12 So.3d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (confirms no stipulation to restored competency without an evidentiary hearing)
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (due process requires proper competency procedures before trial)
Fowler v. State, 255 So.2d 513 (Fla. 1971) (emphasizes need for a hearing under rule 3.210)
Jones v. State, 125 So.3d 982 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (written reports may suffice if agreed, but court retains decision authority)
Mason v. State, 489 So.2d 734 (Fla. 1986) (retrospective competency evaluation may be allowed with sufficient evidence)
Monte v. State, 51 So.3d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (retrospective competency considerations discussed)
Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966) (due process requires proper competency hearing when raised)
Tingle v. State, 536 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1988) (competency hearing standards and remedies discussed)
Corbin v. State, 129 Fla. 421, 176 So. 435 (1937) (early competency precedent cited)