Roman v. State
163 So. 3d 749
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Edwin Roman was charged with sexual battery on a person under 12, lewd molestation, and battery.
- While in custody, defense counsel requested a mental health evaluation; a court-appointed expert found Roman incompetent and the trial court committed him for treatment.
- Months later, the expert reported Roman had regained competence, but no formal competency hearing was held before trial.
- Competency was briefly discussed at a suppression hearing, but the court did not conduct the required hearing or enter an order adjudicating restored competence.
- The trial court erroneously relied on counsel's representations and assumed competency issues were adequately explored, then proceeded to trial.
- The Second District relinquished jurisdiction to the circuit court to conduct a retroactive competency hearing (or find that a new trial is required) under the standards in Dougherty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to hold a competency hearing after prior adjudication of incompetence and a later report of restored competence | Roman: Court was required to hold a hearing before trying him because presumption of incompetence continues absent a court finding of restored competence | State: Competency had been explored; trial court relied on counsel's investigation and proceeded without a formal hearing | Court: Error. After an adjudication of incompetence, a hearing is required when competence is reported restored; the court cannot delegate this determination to counsel |
| Appropriate remedy for failure to hold the required competency hearing | Roman: New trial required unless competency can be reliably determined retrospectively | State: (implicitly) attempt retrospective determination may suffice | Court: Relinquished jurisdiction to permit a Dougherty-style retroactive competency hearing; if competence at time of trial can be established with findings, convictions stand; if not, new trial required |
Key Cases Cited
- Molina v. State, 946 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (presumption of continued incompetence after an incompetency adjudication until court finds otherwise)
- Jackson v. State, 880 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (defendant's legal status cannot be changed from incompetent to competent without a hearing)
- S.B. v. State, 134 So. 3d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (hearing requires calling court-appointed experts and entry of an order adjudicating competence)
- Blow v. State, 902 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (parties may stipulate to competency determination on experts' reports)
- Jones v. State, 125 So. 3d 982 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (competency determination is the judge's duty and cannot be delegated to counsel)
- Macaluso v. State, 12 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (after incompetency finding, court abused discretion by declining a competency hearing before trial)
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014) (discusses retroactive competency determinations and when a new trial is required)
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1966) (due process requires competency determination before trial)
- Tingle v. State, 536 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1988) (due process principles in competency contexts)
- Metzgar v. State, 741 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (defendant cannot waive right to competency determination)
- Mason v. State, 489 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1986) (retroactive competency evaluation permitted when sufficient contemporaneous evidence exists)
- Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1971) (procedural guidance on remand following competency issues)