ERICK JAMES ERICKSON, 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.
Erick Erickson appealed his sentencing after entering a no contest plea to violation of probation charges. The trial court had previously adjudicated him incompetent to proceed and committed him to DCF, but proceeded to sentencing without holding a new competency hearing after DCF reported he had regained competency. The appellate court reversed, holding that a trial court must hold a hearing to determine competency before proceeding to sentencing, even after DCF reports restoration of competency.
A trial court must hold a competency hearing before proceeding to sentencing after a defendant previously adjudicated incompetent, even when DCF reports restoration of competency. A determination by DCF that a defendant has regained competency is insufficient to change a defendant's legal status; only a trial court hearing can make that determination. The trial court must also inquire whether the defendant still seeks to discharge counsel if found competent.
[1] A defendant adjudicated incompetent to proceed cannot be proceeded against while incompetent.
[2] A defendant's legal status cannot change 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 violation of probation "who is mentally incompetent to proceed at any material stage of a criminal proceeding shall not be proceeded against while incompetent."”
Establishes the governing legal standard from Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(a) prohibiting prosecution of incompetent defendants
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn July 2001, Erickson entered a no contest plea to violation of probation charges but fled the state before sentencing. He was re-arrested and return…
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 Discharge Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
EVANDER, J.
In July, 2001, Erickson entered a no contest plea to violation of probation charges. He fled the state prior to his scheduled sentencing date. Eventually, Erickson was re-arrested. He was returned to Florida in August, 2003, and a new sentencing date was scheduled. Prior to the new sentencing date, Erickson’s counsel filed a motion to determine Erickson’s competency. The trial court ultimately determined that Erickson was incompetent to proceed and, in August, 2004, he was committed to the Department of Children and Families (DCF). In December, 2004, DCF advised the trial court that Erickson had regained his competency. Over defense counsel’s objection, the trial court subsequently proceeded to sentencing without first holding a new competency hearing. We reverse.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(a) provides that a person accused of violation of probation “who is mentally incompetent to proceed at any material stage of a criminal proceeding shall not be proceeded against while incompetent.” Furthermore, once adjudicated incompetent, the legal status of a defendant cannot change from incompetent to competent without a hearing. Sledge v. State, 871 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); see also Molina v. State, 946 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Samson v. State, 853 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Blue v. State, 837 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). A determination by DCF that a criminal defendant has regained competency is insufficient to change the defendant’s legal status. It is the trial court’s responsibility, after a hearing, to determine whether a defendant has regained his competency in order to proceed. Sledge, 871 So. 2d at 1021.
Erickson also contends that the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing on his pro se motion to discharge counsel. This motion was filed during the period of time in which Erickson was adjudicated incompetent to proceed. We conclude that if Erickson is adjudicated competent, the trial court will need to inquire whether Erickson still seeks to discharge his counsel.
This cause is remanded for a competency hearing and a new sentencing proceeding if Erickson is found competent to proceed.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GRIFFIN and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014)…udicated competent to proceed by a court.” Jackson v. State, 880 So. 2d 1241, 1242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (citing Holland v. State, 634 So. 2d 813, 815 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)); see also Corbin v. State, 129 Fla. 421, 176 So. 435 (1937); Erickson v. State, 965 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); and Molina v. State, 946 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). [*677] Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.210-3.212 were enacted to set forth the required competency hearing procedures for determining whether a defendant is compete…
-
Presley v. State, 199 So. 3d 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…ts alone.” Dougherty, 149 So. 3d at 677-78 (quoting Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513, 515 (Fla.1971)). A defendant’s legal status does not change merely because DCF makes a determination that the defendant has regained competency. Erickson v. State, 965 So. 2d 294, 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). Likewise, “a defendant cannot stipulate that he is competent, particularly where he has been previously adjudicated incompetent during the same criminal proceedings.” Dougherty, 149 So. 3d at 678. This is because “a defenda…
-
Antoine L. Bynum v. State, 247 So. 3d 601 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…This was the second time that Appellant was found incompetent to proceed in this case. We note "[a] determination by DCF that a criminal defendant has regained competency is insufficient to change the defendant's legal status." Erickson v. State , 965 So. 2d 294, 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). Our record indicates the first material stage after the competency hearing was trial.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Molina v. State, 946 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Elizar Samson v. State, 853 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Keydrum Blue v. State, 837 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Sledge v. State, 871 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)