S.B. v. State
134 So. 3d 528
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Defendant S.B. appeals a trial court ruling that he was competent to proceed to trial.
- Defendant previously was found incompetent in two separate cases.
- After a three-year interval, the court held a hearing; defense and State stipulated to competency but did not stipulate to the doctor’s report contents.
- The court entered a written order finding competency based solely on the stipulations and its review of the report without a hearing.
- Trials proceeded; juries convicted in both cases on battery, disrupting a school function, and burglary of a conveyance.
- The court later noted Rule 3.212 and relevant precedent, holding that explicit or implicit stipulations to written reports do not alone satisfy the rule; case remanded for new competency hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether competency may be decided without a proper hearing. | State argues written reports may support competency if the parties agree. | S.B. contends there was no explicit stipulation to contents or to rely solely on the report. | Yes; improper without proper hearing; remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fowler v. State, 255 So.2d 513 (Fla. 1971) (written reports may be used if the parties agree)
- Jones v. State, 125 So.3d 982 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (explicit stipulations to reports; reliance on reports in lieu of testimony)
- Macaluso v. State, 12 So.3d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (Macaluso prohibits stipulations to ultimate competency without an evidentiary hearing)
- Samson v. State, 853 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (requires hearing, expert testimony, and order when restoring competency)
- Jones v. State, 125 So.3d 982 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (discussion of Macaluso and rule 3.212 compliance)