Sergio Dupree Moorer v. State of Florida
187 So. 3d 315
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Sergio Dupree Moorer was indicted for 2011 premeditated murder and grand theft; the state sought the death penalty and Moorer pled intent to rely on an insanity defense.
- The state moved for a court-appointed competency evaluation after observing bizarre courtroom behavior, inability to communicate with counsel, delusional letters, and prior mental-health history.
- The court appointed Dr. Lawrence Gilgun, who concluded Moorer was incompetent; the court later appointed Dr. John Bingham, who concluded Moorer was competent.
- Defense counsel and the state agreed at a May 6, 2013 status conference that a competency hearing was required, but no competency hearing was ever held.
- Fifteen months later Moorer was tried, convicted of first-degree murder and grand theft, and sentenced to life without parole plus a consecutive five-year term; he appealed asserting the trial court erred by failing to hold a competency hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to hold a competency hearing after appointing experts | Moorer: court had reasonable grounds and must hold hearing when experts are appointed or reasonable doubt exists | State: receipt of Dr. Bingham’s competency report obviated need for further proceedings | Reversed — court must hold a competency hearing once reasonable grounds exist and experts were appointed; no waiver shown |
| Whether a competency finding can be made nunc pro tunc | Moorer: entitled to hearing to determine competency at time of trial | State: argued reliance on Dr. Bingham’s report was sufficient to proceed | Court: trial court may, on remand and depending on record, make a nunc pro tunc competency determination if evidence supports competency at trial time |
| Whether parties waived competency hearing | Moorer: no waiver in record | State: implied waiver by proceeding after Dr. Bingham’s report | Held: no evidence of waiver; prior agreement that hearing was required negates waiver argument |
| Whether Rule 3.210 and 3.212 require written competency findings | Moorer: rules require hearing and written finding when competency is in question | State: argued the report foreclosed requirement | Held: rules require a hearing when reasonable grounds exist and a written order memorializing competency findings is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Cotton v. State, 177 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (due process violation to proceed against an incompetent defendant)
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014) (trial court must enter written competency finding; competency hearing required when reasonable grounds exist)
- Monte v. State, 51 So. 3d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (once reasonable grounds exist, court must conduct competency hearing)
- Reynolds v. State, 177 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (affirming need for written competency determination)
- Cochran v. State, 925 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (appointment of experts upon reasonable belief of incompetence mandates a competency hearing)
- Thomas v. State, 894 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (discussing circumstances constituting waiver of competency proceedings)