Wilmario Trueblood v. State of Florida
193 So. 3d 1060
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Trueblood appealed convictions for two counts of burglary and one count of grand theft.
- Defense counsel filed a competency evaluation motion under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.210/3.211, alleging extensive mental-health history and inability to assist or behave in court; the trial court found reasonable grounds and appointed Dr. D’Errico.
- Dr. D’Errico examined Trueblood and reported he was competent; the trial court made no written or oral competency finding and did not hold a competency hearing.
- Defense counsel requested a second evaluation; after a hearing the trial court denied the second evaluation and conducted a limited plea-colloquy-style inquiry but did not hold a formal competency hearing.
- Trueblood was tried and convicted; on appeal he argued the trial court erred by failing to hold a competency hearing after appointing and receiving an expert’s report.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a competency hearing was required after appointment and expert evaluation | Trueblood: trial court had reasonable grounds, appointed expert, receipt of expert report required a competency hearing and an express competency determination | State: expert found defendant competent; court’s limited inquiry and denial of second evaluation were sufficient; no hearing necessary | Court: Trial court erred by failing to hold a competency hearing and make a competency finding after appointing an expert and receiving the report; reversal/remand required |
| Whether plea-colloquy cured failure to hold competency hearing | Trueblood: plea colloquy does not substitute for required competency hearing or written finding | State: limited colloquy showed awareness and competency, so no further hearing needed | Court: Plea-colloquy did not cure the error; expert reports are advisory and court must make its own competency determination |
| Need for new trial or retrospective (nunc pro tunc) competency evaluation | Trueblood: error requires reversal and, if competency cannot be determined retrospectively, a new trial | State: (implicit) retroactive determination may be possible; no new trial necessary | Court: Reversal required; whether new trial is needed depends on ability to conduct a nunc pro tunc competency evaluation on remand |
| Admission of other-crimes testimony | Trueblood: trial court abused discretion admitting other-crimes evidence | State: admission was proper | Court: Affirmed admission without comment |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodgers v. State, 3 So. 3d 1127 (Fla. 2009) (standard of review for denial of competency hearing)
- Boggs v. State, 575 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1991) (if reasonable grounds exist, court must hold competency hearing)
- Cotton v. State, 177 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (once court has reasonable grounds, competency hearing is mandatory)
- Reynolds v. State, 177 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (appointment of expert followed by no hearing or competency order is error)
- Peede v. State, 955 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2007) (expert reports are advisory; court retains competency decision)
- Cochran v. State, 925 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (failure to hold competency hearing after ordering evaluation mandates relief)
- Brooks v. State, 180 So. 3d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (failure to hold competency hearing or enter written competency order requires reversal; nunc pro tunc evaluation may avoid new trial)