GIL CAMACHO v. STATE OF FLORIDA
225 So. 3d 272
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Gil Camacho was charged with attempted first-degree murder with a weapon and false imprisonment; convicted of attempted second-degree murder and sentenced. His conviction and sentence were previously affirmed on direct appeal.
- In a subsequent habeas petition, Camacho alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (IAAC) for failing to raise seven issues on appeal, including competency-related error.
- After trial started, the trial court appointed experts to evaluate Camacho’s competency and ordered written evaluations, but the record contains no competency reports, no competency hearing transcript, and no ruling resolving competency.
- The trial court docket shows a status hearing entry referencing competency, but no substantive ruling appears in the record.
- The State conceded the possibility that a remand could be required for a retroactive competency determination but argued Camacho’s actions at trial indicated competence.
- The Fourth District found merit in Camacho’s fourth claim (failure to hold/resolve competency hearing after appointing experts) and granted relief limited to that ground, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising that the trial court failed to hold/resolve a competency hearing after appointing experts | Camacho: appointment of experts created reasonable doubt about competency; court was required to hold a competency hearing and rule | State: Camacho’s participation in his defense shows competence; any error may be cured retroactively | Court: IAAC meritorious on this ground; remand for proceedings to determine competency or allow retroactive determination if sufficient contemporaneous witnesses/reports exist |
| Whether other appellate issues (probation concurrency, double jeopardy, scoresheet offense level, jury finding on victim injury) warranted IAAC relief | Camacho: multiple sentencing and scoresheet errors and evidentiary errors required appellate challenge | State: these issues either lack merit or were not conceded as requiring relief in this petition | Court: Declined relief on these other issues; granted relief only on competency issue |
| Whether a retroactive competency determination can cure the trial court’s omission | Camacho: retroactive determination may be necessary and appropriate | State: acknowledged retroactive determination might be needed | Court: Allowed for retroactive determination if sufficient expert and lay witnesses who observed the defendant contemporaneous with trial are available |
| Whether appointment of competency experts creates a duty to hold a hearing | Camacho: appointment indicated reasonable grounds to doubt competency, triggering duty to hold hearing | State: did not dispute the legal duty but emphasized evidence of competence | Held: Appointment of experts triggers duty to conduct competency hearing and enter ruling; failure to do so supports relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutherford v. Moore, 774 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 2000) (ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel standard parallels Strickland)
- Silver v. State, 193 So. 3d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (trial court’s appointment of competency experts required a subsequent competency hearing and ruling; retroactive competency determination may cure omission)
- Camacho v. State, 192 So. 3d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (prior appeal affirming petitioner’s conviction)