Carlos D. Cotton v. State of Florida
177 So. 3d 666
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Appellant Carlos D. Cotton appealed a judgment and sentence for violation of probation under Anders review.
- Record review showed the trial court ordered a competency evaluation and designated a doctor, but the record in this case did not contain the evaluation request, the doctor’s report, or any competency hearing/order.
- The court issued a Causey order asking the public defender to supplement the record; the defense said no competency determination existed in this file.
- The State asserted the evaluation and report were prepared but filed in a different case file and not before the trial court in this case.
- Because due process prohibits proceeding against an incompetent defendant, the appellate court found the absence of a competency hearing/order fatal to affirmance and directed remand for proper proceedings or nunc pro tunc entry if a hearing was actually held.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether record shows competency determination before sentencing on VOP | Cotton: record lacks competency order; proceeding violated due process | State: evaluation was performed and concluded competency but documents were filed in another case, not this record | Remanded: record insufficient; trial court must file competency documents or hold hearing and enter order (or enter nunc pro tunc order if hearing occurred) |
| Whether appellate court may supplement record with documents from a different case | Cotton: not applicable | State: asked court to supplement with evaluation filed in another case | Denied: court will not add documents never filed in the lower tribunal's record |
| Whether a retroactive competency adjudication is permissible | Cotton: N/A | State: urged that competency may be found retroactively if supported by prior evidence | Court: permitted in some circumstances; trial court may make nunc pro tunc determination if prior record supports it; otherwise must hold hearing and proceed accordingly |
| Whether Anders review permits affirmance despite missing competency record | Cotton: N/A | State: argued competence was established elsewhere, suggesting affirmance | Court: cannot affirm on this record under Anders; must remand to resolve competency issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural framework for counsel's brief when no meritorious issues exist)
- State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1987) (procedure for ordering supplementation on competency questions)
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014) (due process requires competency determination before proceeding; retroactive determinations possible in limited circumstances)
- Ross v. State, 155 So. 3d 1259 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (trial court must hold hearing, review experts, enter written competency order)
- Monte v. State, 51 So. 3d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (court must hold competency hearing once reasonable grounds exist)
- Mairena v. State, 6 So. 3d 80 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (same)
- Carrion v. State, 859 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (same)
- Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1971) (competency hearing required immediately when restoration questioned)
- Thornber v. City of Fort Walton Beach, 534 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (appellate court may not add documents that were never part of the lower tribunal record)
- Hampton v. State, 988 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (oral competency finding may be cured by nunc pro tunc written order)
- Martinez v. State, 851 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (remand for entry of competency order nunc pro tunc appropriate)
- Maxwell v. State, 974 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 5th DCA) (discussing limits on retroactive competency hearings)
- Cochran v. State, 925 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (competency-hearing requirements reiterated)