Ronald Pak Zern v. State of Florida, 191 So. 3d 962

Appellant Ronald Pak Zern was convicted of aggravated assault, aggravated battery on a person 65 or older, improper exhibition of a firearm, and tampering with evidence.
Counsel requested a psychological evaluation; the first psychologist recommended consideration of incompetence.
The State moved for a second evaluation; the court ordered it despite Appellant personally stating he was competent and opposing a second exam (counsel did not join Appellant’s statement).
The second psychologist found Appellant competent; a third psychologist was later appointed after conflicting opinions and also found Appellant competent.
At the competency hearing, defense counsel stipulated to competence and the State requested to proceed; the court declared Appellant competent without (1) announcing an independent factual finding on the record or (2) receiving testimony from the experts, despite their presence.
The First DCA held that the trial court failed to make the required independent competency finding and reversed, ordering a retroactive competency determination or a new trial if retrospective determination is not possible or finds incompetence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by failing to make an independent competency finding after expert reports conflicted	Zern argued the court must independently determine competence at the competency hearing and cannot rely on stipulation or unexamined reports	State argued expert reports and defense counsel’s stipulation supported finding competence and proceeding	Court held the trial court committed fundamental error by not making an independent competency finding and reversed for retroactive determination or new trial as required
Whether the court erred by ordering a second psychological evaluation over Appellant’s on-the-record protest (when first evaluator recommended possible incompetence)	Zern contended the court should not have ordered additional evaluations after Appellant personally asserted competence	State maintained that a second evaluation was appropriate given conflicting expert opinions and counsel had not joined Appellant’s personal statement opposing evaluation	Court found no distinct reversible error in ordering the additional evaluation; appointment of further evaluators was not improper given conflict among experts

Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014) (court must make independent competency finding; reports advisory only)
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1975) (due process protects against trial while incompetent)
Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1971) (court may decide competence on reports if parties and court agree)
McCray v. State, 71 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 2011) (expert reports are advisory; trial court must independently assess competency)
Mason v. State, 489 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1986) (retroactive competency determinations possible when contemporaneous witnesses available)
Brooks v. State, 180 So. 3d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (once reasonable grounds exist, court must hold competency hearing)