RAYMOND HANNA v. STATE OF FLORIDA
16-0770
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Oct 4, 2017Background
- Appellant Raymond Hanna was charged with grand theft and simulation of legal process for allegedly placing a false lien.
- In December 2013 the trial court found Hanna incompetent and the case entered mental health restoration procedures with DCF.
- Multiple competency evaluations were ordered; a June 2015 evaluation opined Hanna was competent.
- At a hearing the parties (prosecution and defense) stated a stipulation of competency; the court then entered a written order finding Hanna competent.
- Hanna proceeded to jury trial, was convicted and sentenced, and appealed the competency ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parties may stipulate to defendant's competency after prior incompetency adjudication | Hanna: stipulation to competency was improper; court must independently determine competency | State: parties only stipulated to the evaluation, not competency; court made an independent finding | Court: Stipulation was to competency, not to admitting the report; relying on stipulation was erroneous; competency order reversed |
| Whether deciding competency on written reports is permissible without live testimony | Hanna: implicit stipulation to report insufficient when previously adjudicated incompetent | State: stipulation to using reports can be inferred; court may decide on written reports | Court: Parties may agree to decide on written reports, but here there was no clear stipulation to the report itself; implicit stipulation insufficient |
| Remedy for inadequate competency determination | Hanna: requires reversal of conviction or retrial | State: trial court independently found competence; conviction should stand | Court: New trial not required if court can make a retroactive (nunc pro tunc) competency determination that comports with due process; remanded for such proceedings |
| Faretta / right to self-representation claim | Hanna: trial court failed to make proper Faretta determination and failed to renew counsel offer | State: (not detailed here) | Court: Affirmed on Faretta issue (no discussion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rumph v. State, 217 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (parties may stipulate to deciding competency from written reports but may not stipulate to competency itself after prior incompetency)
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014) (retroactive competency determinations can cure inadequate pretrial determinations)
- S.B. v. State, 134 So. 3d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (reversed competency finding where parties implicitly stipulated to competency but did not stipulate to admission of the expert report)
- Williams v. State, 169 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (nunc pro tunc competency evaluation can avoid a new trial if it comports with due process)
- Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1971) (trial court may decide competency on the basis of written reports if parties and judge agree)