FACTS
In 2015, the trial court found appellant was incompetent and committed him to the Department of Children and Families to be placed in a mental health treatment facility. On March 15, 2016, the trial court found appellant was competent to proceed. However, the court failed to enter a written order memorializing this finding.
On April 15, 2016, defense counsel expressed concern about appellant's competency and asked the court to order a new evaluation. The court ordered an evaluation.
On May 24, 2016, the court accepted a nolo contendere plea from appellant. As to the competency issue, defense counsel stated, "Your Honor ordered an evaluation. It came back competent to proceed." The court responded, "Okay."
On July 26, 2016, appellant moved to withdraw his plea, alleging without elaboration that his counsel was ineffective. The court denied the motion, finding ineffective assistance of counsel was not one of the enumerated grounds for withdrawing a plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(l ).
ANALYSIS
The trial court erred with regards to both determinations of competency.
First, the trial court erred by failing to enter a written order memorializing its oral finding that appellant was competent to proceed on March 15, 2016. A written order is required. Flowers v. State ,
Second, the trial court erred by failing to conduct a hearing or make an independent determination on appellant's competency prior to accepting his plea on May 24, 2016, despite having ordered a competency evaluation on April 15, 2016. "Once a court has reasonable grounds to question a defendant's mental health, it must hold a hearing" and make an "independent assessment of competency." Sheheane v. State ,
"Generally, the remedy for a trial court's failure to conduct a proper competency hearing is for the defendant to receive a new trial, if deemed competent to proceed on remand." Dougherty v. State ,
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a retroactive determination of competency, if possible. If the court is unable to make a retroactive competency determination or determines that appellant was not competent at the time he entered his plea, a new trial will be required, so long as appellant is competent on remand.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
Roberts and Wetherell, JJ., concur.
