Bylock v. State
196 So. 3d 513
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Bylock was adjudicated incompetent in Oct. 2013 and committed to Florida State Hospital for restoration to competency.
- A competency status hearing was held Apr. 11, 2014; Bylock and his defense counsel were present, the State's counsel was absent.
- The trial court orally stated the hospital had indicated Bylock was competent and orally adjudicated him competent; no witnesses were called and no written competency order was entered.
- Months later Bylock pleaded no contest to two counts of burglary and two counts of criminal mischief and was sentenced (including designation as a habitual violent felony offender).
- On appeal Bylock argued the court committed fundamental error by failing to hold an adequate competency hearing and by allowing plea/sentencing without a proper restoration finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s oral statement at the status hearing satisfied the Rule 3.212 requirement to hold a hearing and adjudicate restoration of competency | Bylock: oral remark was insufficient; no proper hearing, no written order, so presumption of incompetence persisted | State: (implicit) relied on hospital reports indicating restoration and proceeded after court’s oral adjudication | Court: Reversed — oral declaration without hearing, without State counsel, without witness testimony or party agreement to rely solely on reports, and without a written order was insufficient to restore competency |
| Whether Bylock’s subsequent plea and convictions were valid absent a proper competency determination | Bylock: plea entered while defendant remained legally incompetent; plea invalid | State: (implicit) plea valid after trial court’s oral competency finding | Court: Plea and convictions invalid as matter of law; remand for proper competency proceeding |
Key Cases Cited
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014) (court must follow competency hearing rules to protect due process and provide appellate record)
- Roman v. State, 163 So. 3d 749 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (presumption of ongoing incompetence after initial finding until court makes proper restoration finding)
- Molina v. State, 946 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (same presumption principle)
- Ross v. State, 155 So. 3d 1259 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (prosecution may not proceed at material stage against incompetent defendant; competency hearing required)
- Jackson v. State, 880 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (restoration requires hearing; oral adjudication based only on reports invalid without party agreement)
- Shakes v. State, 185 So. 3d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (trial court may rely on written reports only if parties agree; court must independently determine competency and enter written order)
- Samson v. State, 853 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (failure to take expert testimony and failure to enter written order means defendant remained incompetent to proceed)