Robert L. Rumph v. State
217 So. 3d 1092
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Robert Lee Rumph was indicted for first-degree murder; after initially pursuing an insanity defense he later agreed to plead no contest to second-degree murder under a plea deal.
- Rumph was adjudicated incompetent to stand trial on November 7, 2012, and committed to Florida State Hospital for treatment.
- Multiple forensic evaluators later assessed Rumph: Dr. Okazaki (competent as of Oct. 2, 2013), Dr. Danziger (partially improved, competent as of Jan. 23, 2014), and Dr. Hall (competent with accommodations as of Feb. 24, 2014). Some reports were sealed and filed.
- On July 2, 2014, the trial court accepted Rumph’s no contest plea, made a verbal finding of competency based on counsel’s representations and its colloquy with Rumph, and imposed a 40-year sentence (with a 25-year mandatory minimum).
- No written order adjudicating Rumph competent to proceed appears in the record, and the trial court admitted at an earlier hearing that it had not read the expert reports.
- The Fifth District reversed, concluding proper competency procedures were not followed and remanding for a retrospective competency hearing or other relief as required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rumph) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court followed required procedures to overcome presumption of incompetency after prior adjudication | Court failed to hold the required competency hearing and improperly relied on counsel and colloquy without an independent judicial determination | Trial court orally found competency based on counsel’s representations and doctors’ reports; plea should stand | Reversed: after prior adjudication of incompetency the court must independently determine competency and follow procedures before proceeding |
| Whether a written order adjudicating competency was required before accepting plea | A written nunc pro tunc competency order was never entered; absence requires reversal/remand | An oral finding and representations sufficed; any omission could be remedied nunc pro tunc | Reversed: written adjudication of competency is required; remand for retrospective hearing and possible nunc pro tunc order if hearing shows competency; otherwise vacate plea and sentence |
| Whether trial court’s review of expert reports was necessary | Trial court admitted it had not read the reports; such review is required when competency is decided on reports | Court relied on counsel’s stipulation/representations that doctors found competency | Reversed: court must actually review examiner reports or conduct a proper hearing before finding competency |
Key Cases Cited
- McCray v. State, 71 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 2011) (competency cannot be ignored; procedures must protect right not to be tried while incompetent)
- Peede v. State, 955 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2007) (Dusky standard for competency summarized)
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014) (competency is a legal question; expert reports are advisory; trial court must independently determine competency)
- Presley v. State, 199 So. 3d 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (trial court must review reports/evidence when competency decided on written reports)
- Molina v. State, 946 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 2006) (presumption of incompetency after adjudication persists until court adjudicates competency)
- Bailey v. State, 931 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (written order adjudicating competency required)
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1975) (failure to observe competency procedures deprives defendant of due process)