Thompson v. State
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6892
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Appellant committed a home invasion with sexual battery against an 81-year-old woman and was convicted of sexual battery and burglary of an occupied structure, receiving two consecutive 15-year terms.
- Direct-review appellate court affirmed the convictions in Thompson v. State, 995 So.2d 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
- Appellant claimed trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a competency evaluation or hearing, and that the trial court abused by not sua sponte ordering a competency hearing.
- The claims implicate both procedural and substantive incompetency concepts; the court distinguishes between these and rejection of most postconviction competency claims.
- The court ultimately affirmed the postconviction denial, declining to grant an evidentiary hearing or relief, and addressed the proper standards for competency-related claims in postconviction proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel’s failure to seek a competency evaluation/hearing constitutes ineffective assistance. | Thompson argues defense counsel should have pursued competency evaluation/hearing. | Appellant contends counsel’s failure was deficient given alleged mental issues. | No reversal; movant must show deficient performance and prejudice, which were not shown. |
| Whether the trial court’s failure to sua sponte conduct a competency hearing was error. | Thompson maintains trial court erred by not sua sponte ordering a competency hearing. | State argues procedural bar and no substantial showing of incompetency. | Procedurally barred for postconviction; no error given lack of substantial incompetency showing. |
| Whether substantive incompetency claims may be raised in postconviction proceedings and the applicable standard. | Nelson allows substantive incompetency claims in postconviction with strict evidentiary requirements. | Postconviction standard requires actual incompetence showing; procedural bar applies. | Substantive incompetency claims are not cognizable in postconviction without the required showing; but evidentiary standard remains high when raised. |
| What is the appropriate deficiency and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance claims tied to competency to proceed? | Movant must show reasonable probability that incompetence existed and would have affected trial. | No proof of actual incompetence or prejudice; standard mirrors Dusky and related caselaw. | Movant must show specific facts creating real doubt about competency; here no such showing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (due process requires procedures to protect against trying while incompetent)
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966) (failure to order competency hearing may violate due process)
- Scott v. State, 420 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1982) (court must schedule competency hearing if reasonable ground to believe incompetence)
- Nelson v. State, 43 So.3d 20 (Fla. 2010) (Pate presumption not applicable in postconviction; procedural bar on direct-appeal grounds but substantive inquiry may be limited)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (defining standard for competency to proceed)
- Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437 (1992) (due process right not to be tried while incompetent; reflects substantive standard)
- James v. Singletary, 957 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir. 1992) (distinguishes procedural vs substantive incompetency standards; prescribes assessment framework)
- Bush v. Wainwright, 505 So.2d 409 (Fla. 1987) (context on substantive incompetency and direct-appeal limits)
- Card v. State, 497 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1986) (distinguishes Hill and reality of actual incompetency in postconviction)
- Hill v. State, 473 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 1985) (fact-specific approach to substantive incompetency relief)