Hernandez-Alberto v. State, 126 So. 3d 193

Hernandez-Alberto, a Mexican citizen residing in Florida, was convicted of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder for killings of his stepdaughters and sentenced to death.
He was found incompetent to stand trial initially but later deemed competent to proceed; trial included a Faretta self-representation by Hernandez-Alberto with standby counsel, and sentencing included multiple aggravators and mitigators.
Postconviction proceedings were initiated by CCRC in 2006 but Hernandez-Alberto refused to verify the motion, repeatedly indicating he wanted to file his own pro se claims.
The trial court conducted extensive competency evaluations over several years, including hearings in 2008, 2009, and 2010, ultimately finding him competent to proceed with postconviction proceedings with counsel.
Hernandez-Alberto repeatedly refused to sign a verification, leading the court to dismiss the unverified postconviction motion with prejudice after facial insufficiency and failure to file a verified motion.
He petitioned this Court for habeas relief, arguing, among other things, that Edwards requires remand to determine competency to represent himself; the court denied relief and affirmed the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal of unverified postconviction motion with prejudice was due process error	Hernandez-Alberto argues he never waived postconviction rights.	Court properly required verification and Hernandez-Alberto obstructed progress by not signing.	No due process error; waiver was not properly effectuated and obstruction caused dismissal.
Whether Hernandez-Alberto was competent to proceed with postconviction proceedings	Competence contested; expert opinions varied; he should be deemed incompetent to proceed.	Trial court did not abuse its discretion; multiple experts found competence or adequate capacity to proceed with counsel.	Court did not abuse its discretion; Hernandez-Alberto was competent to proceed with postconviction proceedings with counsel.
Whether Edwards permits remand to determine self-representation at trial for pre-Edwards decision	Edwards requires remand to decide if he was competent to represent himself at trial.	Edwards does not apply; he was granted Faretta self-representation after a proper inquiry, so no remand needed.	Edwards not applicable; Faretta inquiry upheld the self-representation right; no remand required.
Whether the petition for habeas corpus warrants relief or remand for further Edwards-type inquiry	Seek remand or new trial if Edwards issues cannot be resolved.	Edwards does not compel remand; trial procedures and self-representation were properly handled.	Relief denied; no remand or new trial warranted.

Durocher v. Singletary, 623 So.2d 482 (Fla.1993) (right to collateral counsel waiver requires knowing, intelligent waiver with proper inquiry)
Sanchez-Velasco v. State, 702 So.2d 224 (Fla.1997) (courts may allow withdrawal of postconviction motions by defendant)
Carter v. State, 706 So.2d 873 (Fla.1997) (limited exception to oath requirement for competency-based motions)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation when knowingly and intelligently waived counsel)
Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (U.S. 2008) (states may deny self-representation to those not competent to conduct trial due to mental illness)
James v. State, 974 So.2d 365 (Fla.2008) (waiver of collateral counsel may be valid if voluntary, knowing, and intelligent)
Alston v. State, 894 So.2d 46 (Fla.2004) (competency standard and court’s assessment of conflicting expert testimony)
Scott v. State, 464 So.2d 1171 (Fla.1985) (oath requires truthfulness of postconviction allegations)
Groover v. State, 703 So.2d 1035 (Fla.1997) (oath requirement for postconviction motions and procedures)
Hardy v. State, 716 So.2d 761 (Fla.1998) (competence to proceed standard and deference to trial court findings)
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1960) (standard for competence to stand trial)