Clifton Brooks v. State of Florida
180 So. 3d 1094
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Clifton Brooks was convicted of sexual battery and lewd or lascivious molestation of a child under 12 and sentenced to two concurrent life terms after representing himself at trial.
- Before trial, defense counsel filed a Suggestion of Mental Incompetence alleging disorientation, agitation, paranoia, and inability to assist in his defense; the court orally granted a continuance for evaluation and the State concurred.
- The record contains no indication a competency evaluation or hearing was ever completed; after reassignment of judge and counsel, no further competency requests appear.
- The trial court never entered a written competency determination or held a competency hearing despite indicia of incompetence observed by counsel and the court.
- At sentencing, Brooks—still pro se—was not informed of the right to counsel or given renewed offer of representation before imposition of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by failing to hold competency hearing after reasonable grounds arose | Brooks: court had reasonable grounds; hearing/evaluation required | State: (implicit) no further competency proceedings necessary; case proceeded | Reversed: court must hold competency hearing on remand; absence of hearing requires reversal |
| Whether a nunc pro tunc competency determination can cure the failure | Brooks: if contemporaneous evidence exists, retroactive determination may be possible | State: (implicit) possibility of nunc pro tunc determination if sufficient contemporaneous evidence | Court: If sufficient contemporaneous evidence exists, court may make a nunc pro tunc competency finding; otherwise must adjudicate present competency and, if competent, order new trial |
| Whether court erred by failing to renew offer of counsel at sentencing (Faretta renewal) | Brooks: court failed to inform pro se defendant of right to counsel at sentencing; sentencing is a critical stage requiring renewal | State: (implicit) no renewal necessary or was waived earlier | Held: Failure to renew offer of counsel at sentencing is per se reversible error; if no new trial, defendant must be resentenced |
Key Cases Cited
- Monte v. State, 51 So.3d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (competency hearing required when court has reasonable grounds to question competency)
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So.3d 672 (Fla. 2014) (nunc pro tunc competency hearings permissible when contemporaneous witnesses can provide pertinent retrospective evidence)
- Mason v. State, 489 So.2d 734 (Fla. 1986) (standards for retrospective competency determination and when a new trial is required)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation and need to renew offer of counsel at critical stages)
- Traylor v. State, 596 So.2d 957 (Fla. 1992) (court must renew offer of counsel at each critical stage after a Faretta waiver)