Moreno v. State, 15-2883

Moreno was charged with violating community control for failing to complete mental health evaluation, register for a domestic-violence class, and submit to random drug testing.
At the first revocation/sentencing hearing Moreno waived counsel after a Faretta hearing; the court revoked community control and sentenced him to 21 years, but appellate court vacated the sentence because the court failed to renew the offer of assistance of counsel at sentencing and remanded for a new sentencing hearing.
On remand the public defender represented Moreno; defense counsel raised competency concerns and the court appointed two doctors (whose written reports concluded Moreno was competent).
The parties stipulated the doctors would testify consistently with their reports; the court accepted the stipulation, observed and questioned Moreno at multiple hearings, and orally found him competent to proceed.
At the new sentencing hearing the court (a different judge) heard mitigation and sentenced Moreno to 21 years imprisonment and 15 years probation; Moreno appealed the competency ruling.
The appellate court affirmed the competency finding and sentence but remanded only to require entry of a written competency order memorializing the oral finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Moreno)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the trial court made an independent competency determination before sentencing	Trial court relied solely on expert reports and stipulation, failing to make the required independent legal determination of competency	Record shows the court observed, questioned, and considered Moreno on multiple occasions in addition to expert reports	Court held the trial judge made an independent determination based on personal observations and experts’ reports; no abuse of discretion
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to appoint a neuropsychologist	Trial court should have appointed a neuropsychologist to evaluate competency	Defense never formally requested a neuropsychologist; parties agreed on two experts and stipulated to their reports; court saw no reasonable grounds to doubt competency	Court held no abuse of discretion because there was no request for a third expert and substantial evidence supported competency

McCray v. State, 71 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 2011) (competency determination reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014) (expert reports are advisory; trial court must make independent legal competency determination)
Shakes v. State, 185 So. 3d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (reversal where trial court failed to consider expert testimony or reports on record)
Gore v. State, 24 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2009) (defendant must have factual and rational understanding and ability to consult with counsel)
Flowers v. State, 353 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (defendant presumed sane on entering courtroom)
Moreno v. State, 167 So. 3d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (remand required where court failed to renew offer of counsel at sentencing)
Gordon v. State, 219 So. 3d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (trial court must enter written competency order when it orally finds defendant competent)