Vestal v. State, 50 So. 3d 733

Vest al was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and grand theft in Florida, with sentencing following a plea.
Three days before trial, defense filed a suggestion of mental incompetence to stand trial on Vestal's behalf.
On the scheduled trial date, Vestal changed her plea to no contest to the charges; it is unclear whether the court was notified of the incompetence suggestion.
Two weeks after the no contest plea, the trial court appointed an expert to examine Vestal's competence, but no expert report was submitted before sentencing.
Vest al argued the trial court erred by proceeding to sentencing without a competency hearing despite invoking Rule 3.210 procedures.
The appellate court held the plea issue was not reviewable without a motion to withdraw the plea, but vacated the sentencing and remanded for a competency hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentencing occurred without a competency hearing after 3.210 was invoked	Vest al contends competency proceedings were invoked, so sentencing was improper.	State contends no error after plea and before competency determination.	Sentence reversed and remanded for competency proceedings.
Whether the plea issue is appealable without a motion to withdraw	Incompetency at plea affects voluntariness of plea and is reviewable.	No motion to withdraw plea means direct appeal of plea issues is improper.	That aspect is not reviewable on direct appeal without a motion to withdraw.

Carrion v. State, 859 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (competency hearing required when 3.210 invoked)
Maxwell v. State, 974 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (competency procedures must be followed)
Cochran v. State, 925 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (necessity of competency hearing when indicated)
Samson v. State, 853 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (adjudication of incompetence changes appealability)
Hicks v. State, 915 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (competency issues and plea withdrawal considerations)