SHIRLEY VESTAL, 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.
Shirley Vestal appealed her convictions for burglary and grand theft, arguing the trial court erred by conducting her sentencing without first holding a competency hearing despite invoking the competency procedures. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding that once a trial court invokes competency proceedings, it must follow the prescribed procedures and hold a competency hearing before sentencing.
Yes. Once a trial court enters a written order invoking competency proceedings and expressly determines that a mental examination is necessary to determine competency, the trial court is required to follow the prescribed procedure and hold a competency hearing before proceeding with sentencing.
[1] A defendant cannot appeal a guilty or nolo contendere plea based on alleged incompetency at the time of the plea unless a motion to withdraw the plea was first filed with…
[2] When a trial court enters an order invoking competency proceedings and determining a mental examination is necessary, the court must hold a competency hearing.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“In the present case, the trial court entered a written order invoking the competency proceedings set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210. In its order, the trial court expressly determined that a mental examination of Vestal was necessary to determine if she was competent to proceed. Having reached this conclusion, the trial court was required to follow the prescribed procedure and hold a competency hearing.”
Establishes the court's holding that once competency proceedings are invoked by court order, mandatory procedures must be followed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThree days before trial, Vestal's defense counsel filed a suggestion of mental incompetence. On the trial date, Vestal withdrew her not guilty plea an…
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 Presumption Of Incompetence cases and more on FLexlaw
Shirley Vestal appeals her convictions for burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. We reverse because the trial court sentenced Vestal without first conducting a competency hearing even though the procedure for determining competency under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210 had been invoked.
The chronology of events in this case is somewhat unique. Three days prior to the scheduled trial date, defense counsel filed a suggestion of mental incompetence to stand trial on behalf of Vestal. On the scheduled trial date, Vestal withdrew her not guilty plea and entered a no contest plea to the burglary and grand theft charges. (It does not appear from the record that counsel ever made the trial court aware of the filing of the suggestion of mental incompetence.) Two weeks after accepting Vestal’s plea, the trial court entered an order appointing an expert to examine Vestal to determine if she was competent to proceed. For reasons unclear from the record, the sentencing proceeding subsequently took place although no report had been submitted by the appointed expert.
On appeal, Vestal contends that the trial court erred by conducting her plea and sentencing proceedings without holding a competency hearing. We lack jurisdiction to consider Vestal’s argument *735with regard to the plea proceeding because Vestal did not file a motion to withdraw her plea with the trial court. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)c.1; see also Hicks v. State, 915 So.2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (defendant’s alleged incompetency at the time of entry of guilty or no contest plea is issue bearing upon voluntariness of defendant’s plea and may not be raised on appeal where no motion to withdraw plea has been filed with trial court).2
However, we agree with Vestal that the trial court erred in proceeding with Vestal’s sentencing hearing. In the present case, the trial court entered a written order invoking the competency proceedings set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210. In its order, the trial court expressly determined that a mental examination of Vestal was necessary to determine if she was competent to proceed. Having reached this conclusion, the trial court was required to follow the prescribed procedure and hold a competency hearing. See Carrion v. State, 859 So.2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); see also Maxwell v. State, 974 So.2d 505 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Cochran v. State, 925 So.2d 370 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Odane Shakes v. State, 185 So. 3d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…ct appeal. Because appellant had been adjudicated incompetent prior to the entry of the plea, the competency issue was cognizable on direct 'appeal without a motion to withdraw plea. Id. (citations omitted). The Ross court cited to Vestal v. State, 50 So. 3d 733, 735 n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), which noted that under rule 3.210(a), “[a]n individual adjudicated incompetent is presumed to remain incompetent until and unless adjudicated competent again after a hearing” and suggested that if a defendant has “been…
-
Bennie John Ross v. State, 155 So. 3d 1259 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…; Samson v. State, 853 So. 2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Because appellant had been adjudicated incompetent prior to the entry of the plea, the competency issue was cognizable on direct appeal without a motion to withdraw plea. Vestal v. State, 50 So. 3d 733, 735 n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a competency proceeding and such other action as may be appropriate thereafter. Blow, 902 So. 2d at 342. REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. BENTON and WETHERELL, J…
-
Campos-Carriera v. State, 106 So. 3d 483 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…ntendere to the charge of second-degree murder. Because the defendant did not timely file a motion to withdraw his plea, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Hicks v. State, 915 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Accord Vestal v. State, 50 So. 3d 733 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). The dismissal is without prejudice to the defendant’s right to seek appropriate and timely postconviction relief in the trial court. DISMISSED. ORFINGER, C.J., and PALMER and BERGER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hicks v. State, 915 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Elizar Samson v. State, 853 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Carrion v. State, 859 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Cochran v. State, 925 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Wendall Maxwell v. State, 974 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- Anderson v. Fla. Parole Comm'n & Fla. Dep't of Corr., 974 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Blackmon v. State, 23 So. 3d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)