MATTHEW v. HAWKS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
226 So. 3d 892
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Matthew Hawks was charged in 2014 with making a false bomb report; he pled no contest, adjudication was withheld, and he received five years probation.
- A special probation condition barred Internet access; the State filed a violation affidavit after Hawks accessed Facebook.
- Defense counsel twice moved for competency determinations and for court‑appointed physicians; the court granted both motions and appointed examiners, but no evaluation reports or related orders appear in the record.
- At a plea hearing the court asked if Hawks was on medication; Hawks said he was taking multiple psychotropic drugs; counsel stated there had been an evaluation and that Hawks was competent.
- The court accepted the plea without holding a competency hearing or entering a written competency order, then sentenced Hawks to ten years in prison plus two years community control.
- Hawks appealed, arguing the trial court erred by failing to hold the required competency hearing and issue a written order after finding reasonable grounds to question competency.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to hold a competency hearing after finding reasonable grounds to question competency | Court appointed evaluators when defense moved; that triggered a mandatory competency hearing which the court failed to hold | Implicitly: brief voir dire and counsel’s representation of competency sufficed (no written evaluations in record to the contrary) | Reversed: appointment of examiners triggered Rule 3.210; court had to hold a hearing and independent inquiry |
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to enter a written competency order after evaluation | Court failed to issue the written findings required by Rule 3.212(b) even if an evaluation existed | Implicitly: absence of a written order is harmless if evaluations established competency | Reversed: written order is mandatory; absence requires vacatur and remand |
| Remedy and possibility of nunc pro tunc competency determination | Hawks is entitled to vacatur; on remand court may consider retroactive (nunc pro tunc) determinations if evaluators/witnesses can testify about contemporaneous evaluations | State may seek retroactive determination if records/witnesses exist to support contemporaneous findings | Vacated and remanded; court may conduct a nunc pro tunc competency determination only if due process can be protected; otherwise must evaluate current competency |
Key Cases Cited
- Monte v. State, 51 So. 3d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (appointment of expert upon finding reasonable grounds triggers competency hearing requirement)
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014) (Rule 3.210 protections safeguard due process and require adequate appellate record)
- Moorer v. State, 187 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (initial finding and appointment of an expert starts court’s competency obligations)
- Holland v. State, 185 So. 3d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (Rule 3.212(b) mandates entry of a written competency order)
- Deferrell v. State, 199 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (even when evaluation finds competence, court must issue written competency findings)
- A.L.Y. v. State, 212 So. 3d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (retroactive competency determinations are permissible only when contemporaneous evidence/witnesses can support them)
- Bain v. State, 211 So. 3d 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (discusses standards and limits for nunc pro tunc competency determinations)