276 So.3d 403
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Roger N. Rosier was found incompetent in Oct. 2013, committed to Florida State Hospital, and later an updated forensic report (June 2014) recommended he was competent to proceed.
- A review/competency matter was scheduled; defense counsel asked for a hearing with Rosier present and the State offered to stipulate to competency.
- On Aug. 14, 2014, a brief hearing occurred in which counsel stipulated to competency, the court questioned Rosier briefly, and the court entered a written order finding him competent.
- Rosier was tried, convicted of resisting an officer with violence, and appealed, arguing the trial court failed to hold the required competency hearing.
- The State supplemented the record with the competency-hearing transcript and argued a hearing occurred and was adequate; Rosier filed no reply or amended brief.
- The en banc court held (1) Rosier waived any challenge to the adequacy of the competency hearing because he did not raise that point in his initial brief, but (2) the record shows a competency hearing occurred, so no reversal on competency was required; the court did reverse only the unpronounced discretionary fine and surcharge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rosier) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court imposed discretionary fine and surcharge without oral pronouncement | Sentencing included a discretionary fine and surcharge that were not orally pronounced | State did not dispute error on this point | Court: Error; fine and surcharge stricken (sentence reversed in part) |
| Whether trial court failed to conduct a competency hearing before finding restored competency | No competency hearing occurred before the order finding Rosier competent | Transcript and written order show a hearing occurred and court made an independent determination | Court: Rosier’s sole appellate claim fails — the record shows a hearing and the competency finding stands |
| Whether appellant may raise inadequacy of the competency hearing when not briefed initially | Implied that failure to hold a hearing encompasses inadequacy or that State’s answer brief opened the issue | State: adequacy was raised in answer brief; appellant had opportunity to respond but did not amend or reply | Court: Adequacy argument waived — appellate courts should not decide issues not raised in the initial brief |
| Whether appellate court may sua sponte correct unraised "fundamental" error (competency due-process defects) | (Advanced in dissents) Court has an "unrenunciable duty" to correct fundamental errors affecting due process (e.g., reliance on stipulation) even if unraised | (Majority) Appellate review normally limited to issues briefed; review for unraised fundamental error is rare and discretionary; no fundamental error shown here | Held: Majority confines decision to raised issues and finds no fundamental error; dissenters argue competency process here showed fundamental due-process error and would remand for a new competency hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014) (trial court must make independent competency determination and enter written order; stipulation cannot substitute for independent finding)
- Zern v. State, 191 So. 3d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (acceptance of counsel stipulation and failure to review evaluations can constitute fundamental error)
- Belizaire v. State, 188 So. 3d 933 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (trial court may not simply accept counsel’s stipulation of competency)
- Pearce v. State, 250 So. 3d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (reversal where required competency procedures were not followed)
- Bain v. State, 730 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (discussing appellate correction of fundamental error)