Golloman v. State
226 So. 3d 332
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- George Golloman was arrested in December 2013 on multiple drug- and officer-related charges; he was adjudicated incompetent to proceed on June 3, 2015.
- After inpatient treatment, two doctors evaluated Golloman and concluded he was competent; no written court order adjudicating restored competency was ever entered.
- On the scheduled trial date, counsel stipulated competency, the court declined a new reevaluation, and Golloman entered a negotiated no-contest plea to amended charges.
- He was sentenced to 36 months’ prison plus 24 months’ community control per the plea agreement.
- Golloman filed a timely motion to withdraw the plea, arguing the plea was involuntary because the court never made an independent competency finding or entered a written order. The trial court denied the motion.
- The Second District reversed, concluding the trial court committed fundamental error by failing to hold a proper competency hearing and enter a written competency determination before accepting the plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Golloman) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea was valid absent a court determination of restored competency | Plea involuntary because no written or oral judicial finding of competency after prior adjudication of incompetence | Court relied on expert evaluations and counsel stipulation; argued competency addressed and plea voluntary | Reversed: court must make independent competency determination and enter written order before proceeding; counsel stipulation insufficient |
| Whether counsel’s stipulation can substitute for a judicial determination | Stipulation cannot cure due-process right to independent competency finding | Stipulation indicated parties agreed competency restored, so plea should stand | Held no: stipulations do not replace court’s independent finding; error to rely solely on counsel agreement |
| Whether failure to make/finding constitutes waiver by failing to object pre-plea | Golloman argued right to independent finding cannot be waived by failing to raise it at plea | Trial court suggested the issue was waived by entry of the plea without contemporaneous objection | Held no waiver: due-process right to competency finding cannot be waived and failure to make finding is fundamental error |
| Remedy when court fails to adjudicate competency before plea | Requested withdrawal of plea and competency hearing | State warned it could proceed on original charges if plea withdrawn | Court ordered reversal and remand for plea withdrawal and proper competency hearing; State may retry on original charges |
Key Cases Cited
- Shakes v. State, 185 So. 3d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (defendant adjudicated incompetent remains presumed incompetent until adjudicated competent)
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014) (court must make independent competency determination; counsel stipulation insufficient)
- Ross v. State, 155 So. 3d 1259 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (Rule 3.210 bars proceeding at material stages when defendant is incompetent)
- Bylock v. State, 196 So. 3d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (trial court must hold hearing on notice that competency may be restored)
- Roman v. State, 163 So. 3d 749 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (presumption of continued incompetence after adjudication until court finds competency)
- Zern v. State, 191 So. 3d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (defendant has due-process right to independent competency finding; right cannot be waived)
- Cramer v. State, 213 So. 3d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (agreement among experts does not relieve court of duty to make independent competency determination)