Julian O. Belizaire v. State of Florida, 188 So. 3d 933

Appellant (Belizaire) was charged with two counts of sexual battery and proceeded to trial after multiple pretrial competency evaluations.
Appellant’s expert initially concluded incompetency based on one statutory factor; the State then obtained a second evaluation finding competency.
The trial court conducted competency hearings in which reports were discussed; defense counsel later stated both experts found competency and the court said, “All right. So what we need now is just a trial date.”
No written order or independent oral finding that competency had been restored was entered before trial; the case proceeded to jury trial and appellant was convicted.
Appellant raised three issues on appeal: (1) improper competency procedure and lack of written competency order, (2) denial of motion to suppress confession, and (3) admission of collateral crime evidence.
The appellate court affirmed the suppression and collateral-evidence rulings but reversed and remanded on the competency issue for a nunc pro tunc determination or new trial if necessary.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether court failed to hold proper competency hearing and enter written competency restoration order after prior adjudication of incompetency	Trial court did not conduct formal hearing or enter written finding restoring competency	Both experts found competency; parties effectively stipulated to proceed	Reversed and remanded for nunc pro tunc competency determination or new trial if retrospective evaluation not feasible
Whether confession should be suppressed for lack of knowing and voluntary waiver	Waiver was not knowing/voluntary; confession should be suppressed	State established valid Miranda waiver	Affirmed (no reversible error)
Whether collateral crime evidence admission was fundamental error	Admission was improper and prejudicial	Admission was not fundamentally erroneous	Affirmed (no reversible error)

Ross v. State, 155 So.3d 1259 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (requirements for proceeding after prior incompetency adjudication)
Dougherty v. State, 149 So.3d 672 (Fla. 2014) (trial court must hold hearing, review evidence, make independent determination, and enter written order when competence restoration is claimed)
Reynolds v. State, 177 So.3d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (failure to hold competency hearing or enter order requires reversal but nunc pro tunc evaluation may cure)
Mason v. State, 489 So.2d 734 (Fla. 1986) (retrospective competency hearings permitted where contemporaneous witnesses available)
Merriell v. State, 169 So.3d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (discussing competency hearing and nunc pro tunc evaluations)
Hunter v. State, 174 So.3d 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (same)