Leslie Richard Hendrix v. State of Florida
228 So. 3d 674
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Hendrix was evaluated for competency by three experts (Drs. Doenlen, Benson, and Gilgun); Benson and Gilgun found him competent.
- On May 4, 2016, the trial court accepted Hendrix’s open guilty plea to felony battery; no written competency order was entered at that time.
- At sentencing on June 16, 2016, the trial court stated it had read the expert reports, found their opinions supported by competent, substantial evidence, and declared Hendrix competent (including at the time of the plea).
- Defense counsel declined to raise any further issue when the court invited objections to competency at sentencing.
- Hendrix challenged on appeal that the trial court failed to follow proper competency procedures and failed to enter a written competency order before accepting his plea.
- The First DCA affirmed the conviction and sentence but remanded for the trial court to enter a written order nunc pro tunc finding Hendrix competent at the time of the plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court followed proper competency procedures before accepting a plea | Hendrix: court failed to conduct proper competency hearing and did not enter written competency order | State: court reviewed expert reports, made independent on-the-record finding of competency and invited objections | Court: trial court properly determined competency on the record but must enter a written nunc pro tunc competency order |
| Whether expert reports could be considered without being admitted into evidence | Hendrix: reports were not in evidence, so court could not rely on them | State: court may decide competency based on written reports and its independent review | Court: reliance on written reports was permissible where court independently determined competency and party had opportunity to object |
| Whether counsel’s failure to object forecloses relief | Hendrix: counsel cannot stipulate away competency rights; failure to object should not bar relief | State: lack of contemporaneous evidentiary objection is relevant; court provided opportunity to contest nunc pro tunc finding | Court: failure to object to evidentiary foundation is not fundamental error here; defendant had opportunity and declined |
| Whether absence of a written competency order requires a new trial | Hendrix: absence of written order invalidates plea and requires reversal | State: remand for nunc pro tunc order suffices unless court cannot reconstruct competency | Court: remand for written nunc pro tunc competency order; no new trial required |
Key Cases Cited
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So.3d 672 (Fla. 2014) (trial court must make independent competency determination and may decide based on written reports when appropriate)
- D’Oleo-Valdez v. State, 531 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 1988) (fundamental error is a denial of due process)
- Lewis v. State, 190 So.3d 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (defendant declared incompetent cannot proceed at material stages)
- Brooks v. State, 180 So.3d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (reasonable grounds to question competency requires a hearing)
- Cotton v. State, 177 So.3d 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (same)
- Mullens v. State, 197 So.3d 16 (Fla. 2016) (trial court’s competency determination must be reduced to writing)
- Fowler v. State, 255 So.2d 513 (Fla. 1971) (competency may be decided on written reports when parties and judge agree)
- Hunter v. State, 660 So.2d 244 (Fla. 1995) (expert reports are advisory; trial court retains responsibility for competency decision)
- Muhammad v. State, 494 So.2d 969 (Fla. 1986) (trial court retains responsibility despite expert opinions)
- Alston v. State, 894 So.2d 46 (Fla. 2004) (trial court must resolve conflicts in expert findings)
- Rumph v. State, 217 So.3d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (parties may stipulate to relying on written reports but not to competency itself)
- Reynolds v. State, 177 So.3d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (new trial required only if nunc pro tunc competency determination is impossible)
- Deferrell v. State, 199 So.3d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (defendant retains right to competency determination notwithstanding lack of contemporaneous objection)
- Merriell v. State, 169 So.3d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (competency hearing sufficient where court reviewed evaluation and stated defendant was competent)