ELIZAR SAMSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Elizar Samson appeals his nolo contendere pleas and 31-year sentences, arguing the pleas were invalid because he was adjudicated incompetent and never restored to competence through proper procedures. The court agreed and reversed, holding that without a formal competency restoration hearing following Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212, a defendant remains presumed incompetent and cannot enter valid pleas.
The pleas are invalid. A defendant adjudicated incompetent is presumed to remain incompetent until a formal hearing restores competence. Because the trial judge took no testimony from examining physicians and entered no written order finding restoration to competence, Samson remained incompetent and could not enter valid pleas.
[1] A person adjudicated incompetent is presumed to remain incompetent until adjudicated restored to competence.
[2] The legal status of a defendant cannot be adjudicated from incompetent to competent without a hearing.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A person accused of an offense or a violation of probation or community control who is mentally incompetent to proceed at any material stage of a criminal proceeding shall not be proceeded against while incompetent.”
Establishes the foundational rule that proceedings cannot continue against an incompetent defendant
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSamson was charged with eight counts of robbery with a deadly weapon. He was adjudicated incompetent to proceed and institutionalized for treatment. A…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Competency To Proceed cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the pleas and sentences in this case. Elizar Samson (“Samson”) argues that his nolo contendere pleas were improperly accepted because he was incompetent at the time. We agree and reverse.
Samson was charged with eight counts of robbery with a deadly weapon. He was then adjudicated incompetent to proceed and institutionalized for treatment. At a later hearing, he pled nolo contendere to the counts charged and was sentenced to thirty-one year concurrent sentences of imprisonment on all counts. Prior to entering these pleas, no hearing was held adjudicating Samson’s legal status from incompetent to competent.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(a) provides:
A person accused of an offense or a violation of probation or community control who is mentally incompetent to proceed at any material stage of a criminal proceeding shall not be proceeded against while incompetent.
An individual adjudicated incompetent is presumed to remain incompetent until adjudicated restored to competence. Alexander v. State, 380 So. 2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (citing Corbin v. State, 129 Fla. 421, 176 So. 435 (1937)). Furthermore, “the legal status of a defendant cannot be adjudicated from incompetent to competent without a hearing.” Id. at 1190. Contrary to the State’s contention, the required hearing to determine whether Samson had been restored to competence did not occur. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212 sets forth the required competency hearing procedures for determining whether a defendant previously adjudicated incompetent has been restored to competence. See Mora v. State, 814 So. 2d 322, 333 (Fla.2002)(indicating that where a defendant’s competence is once questioned, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.210, 3.211, and 3.212 apply if his competence is again questioned). These procedures include the calling of court-appointed expert witnesses designated under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.211, a determination of competence to proceed, and the entry of an order finding competence. See Fla. R. Crirn. P. 3.212.
In the present case, the trial judge did not take the testimony of any of the examining physicians and did not enter a written order stating that Samson was restored to competence. Therefore, he remained incompetent to proceed and could not enter valid pleas. See Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 396, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993); Catinella v. State, 732 So. 2d 444, 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
GUNTHER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (23 total)
-
Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014)…expert witnesses designated under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.211, a determination of competence to proceed, and the entry of an order finding competence.” Jones v. State, 125 So. 3d 982, 983-84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Samson v. State, 853 So. 2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)). The plain language of rule 3.212(a), however, does not require the calling of expert witnesses or any additional witnesses because the word “may” is used. Further, [*678] “where the parties and the judge agree, the trial…
-
Molina v. State, 946 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…being treated stating that the defendant no longer meets the criteria for commitment or has become competent to proceed, see Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.212(c)(5), the court must hold a competency hearing. Fla. R.Crim. P 3.212(c)(6); Jackson; Samson v. State, 853 So. 2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). A proper hearing to determine whether competency has been restored requires “the calling of court-appointed expert witnesses designated under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.211, a determination of competence to proce…
-
Dortch v. State, 242 So. 3d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
Previewing 3 of 23 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1993)
- Mora v. State, 814 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2002)
- Corbin v. State, 129 Fla. 421 (Fla. 1937)
- Alexander v. State, 380 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Catinella v. State, 732 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)