242 So. 3d 431
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant was charged with firearm possession by a felon, dealing in stolen property, and giving false information to a pawnbroker; counsel moved for a competency examination under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.210(b), asserting "reasonable grounds" but waiving the 20-day hearing.
- Trial court granted the motion and appointed an expert; the record shows no competency examination, hearing, or written competency order occurred before the defendant entered an open nolo contendere plea about a year after arrest.
- While incarcerated the defendant faced additional charges; no competency motion was filed in that separate case.
- Trial court accepted the plea and sentenced defendant to ten years; defendant did not move to withdraw the plea and appealed, arguing the court erred by failing to hold a competency hearing and issue a written order prior to accepting the plea.
- The Fourth District held the trial court’s failure to follow Rules 3.210–3.212 (order, hearing, written finding) when it had reasonable grounds to question competence is fundamental error requiring reversal and remand; the court allowed the trial court to make a nunc pro tunc competence determination if possible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court’s failure to hold a competency hearing and issue a written order before accepting plea when it had reasonable grounds to doubt competence is reversible/fundamental error | State: no jurisdictional bar; procedural default should require motion to withdraw plea in many cases | Defendant: failure to comply with Rules 3.210–3.212 is fundamental error and may be raised on direct appeal without motion to withdraw plea | Court: Failure to follow Rules 3.210–3.212 when reasonable grounds exist is fundamental error; reversal and remand required |
| Whether a prior adjudication of incompetence is required for appellate relief without a motion to withdraw plea | State: prior adjudication historically distinguished cases and sometimes required motion to withdraw | Defendant: prior adjudication not required where the court had reasonable grounds and ordered an examination | Court: Prior adjudication not required; Rules mandate hearing and order whenever reasonable grounds exist |
| Proper remedy on remand when no contemporaneous competency finding exists | State: allow post-hoc remedies or affirm if competence can be shown | Defendant: require new trial unless competence can be established retroactively | Court: Trial court may make nunc pro tunc competency finding; if not possible or finds incompetence at time of plea, vacate judgment and set case for trial |
| Whether defendant must first move to withdraw plea before raising competency on direct appeal | State: some precedent required motion to withdraw plea | Defendant: forcing such motion is unfair if defendant may be incompetent | Court: Receded from prior conflicting precedent and held motion to withdraw not required when court had reasonable grounds and ordered examination |
Key Cases Cited
- Samson v. State, 853 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (presumption that an adjudicated incompetent remains incompetent until adjudicated restored)
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So.3d 672 (Fla. 2014) (competency procedures under Rules 3.210–3.212 require compliance)
- Bain v. State, 211 So.3d 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (reversed where court ordered evaluation but failed to conduct hearing or enter order)
- Hawks v. State, 226 So.3d 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (three-step procedure for competence scheduling, hearing, and written findings)
- Sheheane v. State, 228 So.3d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (failure to invoke competency safeguards denies due process and is reversible)
- Burns v. State, 884 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (prior Fourth DCA precedent requiring motion to withdraw plea in some competency-on-plea appeals; receded from to extent conflicting)