Ricardo Reshan Reynolds v. State of Florida
177 So. 3d 296
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Reynolds was arrested for a probation violation; at the court's request counsel moved for a competency determination because Reynolds attempted an open plea despite a plea offer and possible confusion about counsel and sentencing exposure.
- The trial court appointed a mental health expert; the court record lacks the expert report, but defense counsel represented at the plea hearing that the expert found Reynolds competent.
- During the plea colloquy counsel repeatedly expressed ongoing concerns about Reynolds’s competency and noted Reynolds appeared confused about who his lawyer was and insisted on an open plea despite counsel’s advice.
- The trial court accepted Reynolds’s open plea admitting the VOP and sentenced him to 65.55 months’ imprisonment without conducting a competency hearing or entering a written competency order.
- Reynolds appealed, arguing the court erred by accepting his plea without the required competency hearing and written finding; the State argued Reynolds waived the right to a competency hearing by proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by accepting a plea without conducting a competency hearing after appointing an expert | Reynolds: Court had reasonable grounds (appointment of expert); a competency hearing and written order were required before accepting plea | State: Reynolds waived the right by not expressly requesting a hearing and by proceeding with the plea despite counsel’s concerns | Reversed: Appointment of an expert created reasonable grounds; court erred by not holding a hearing or entering a written competency finding |
| Whether any error was waived by failing to request the competency hearing | Reynolds: A defendant cannot knowingly waive a competency determination when competency itself is in question | State: Cite to cases holding waiver where defense counsel and defendant proceeded after review of reports | Waiver not found: Unlike precedent where counsel affirmatively agreed to proceed, here counsel repeatedly expressed concerns, so no waiver |
| Whether contemporaneous affirmative responses in colloquy suffice for competency | Reynolds: Colloquy answers do not replace a required competency hearing/order | State: Court colloquy and defendant’s affirmative answers supported proceeding | Court: Colloquy insufficient; the rules require a hearing and a written order when reasonable doubt exists |
| Remedy where court failed to hold competency hearing | Reynolds: Requires reversal and either nunc pro tunc competency determination or a new VOP hearing if retrospective evaluation is impossible | State: Error harmless or waived | Court: Reverse and remand for nunc pro tunc competency hearing or new VOP hearing if retrospective evaluation cannot adequately assess competency |
Key Cases Cited
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014) (trial court must hold a competency hearing and enter written order when reasonable grounds exist)
- Cochran v. State, 925 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (appointment of experts upon reasonable belief of incompetence obligates a competency hearing)
- Mason v. State, 489 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1986) (nunc pro tunc competency evaluation permissible when contemporaneous witnesses are available; otherwise new trial required)
- Thomas v. State, 894 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (waiver of competency hearing where defendant and counsel affirmatively chose to proceed after experts appointed)
- Hatchell v. State, 328 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (no reversal where counsel and defendant appeared satisfied with psychiatric report and proceeded without requesting hearing)
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1966) (a defendant cannot intelligently waive a competency determination when competency is in question)