BENNIE JOHN ROSS, 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.
A guilty plea entered after a defendant was adjudicated incompetent, without a subsequent order finding competency restored, is invalid as a matter of law.
[1] A criminal prosecution may not proceed at any material stage against a defendant who is incompetent to proceed.
[2] Before proceeding against a defendant previously adjudicated incompetent, the trial court must hold a hearing, review expert evidence, make an independent determination o…
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 intelligenceAppellant pleaded guilty after being adjudicated incompetent, but no order finding his competency restored had been entered. He appeals this acceptanc…
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 Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.210 cases and more on FLexlaw
In this direct appeal, appellant claims the trial court committed fundamental error in accepting his guilty plea because no order had been entered finding appellant competent to proceed after he had been adjudicated incompetent. We agree, reverse, and remand for further proceedings.
Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210, a criminal prosecution may not move forward at any material stage, which includes entry of a plea, against a defendant who is incompetent to proceed. Dougherty v. State, 149 So.3d 672, 676-77 (Fla.2014). In order to proceed against a defendant who has been adjudicated incompetent, the trial court first must hold a hearing to determine whether the defendant’s competency has been restored, review evidence from experts during the hearing, make an independent determination that the defendant’s competency has been restored, and enter a written order to that effect. Id. at 677-78. These require*1260ments cannot be waived by a stipulation. Id. at 678.
Because there is no evidence in the record that the trial court conducted a competency hearing, reviewed evidence from any examining physicians, or made an oral or written finding that appellant had been restored to competence, appellant was presumed incompetent to proceed at any material stage, rendering his plea invalid as a matter of law and subject to challenge for the first time on direct appeal. Blackmon v. State, 23 So.3d 239, 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Blow v. State, 902 So.2d 340, 342 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); 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, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Reynolds v. State, 177 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…to offer pertinent evidence at a retrospective hearing’”) (quoting Mason v. State, 489 So. 2d 734, 737 (Fla.1986)); see also Merriell v. State, 169 So. 3d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Hunter v. State, 174 So. 3d 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Ross v. State, 155 So. 3d 1259 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). Here, the trial court apparently had reasonable grounds to believe that Appellant was not competent to proceed because the court appointed an expert to evaluate Appellant. Although the expert evidently determined that Appellant…
-
Cotton v. State, 177 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…he trial court conducted a competency hearing or ruled on Appellant’s competency. It is a due process violation to proceed against an incompetent criminal [*668] defendant. Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672, 676 (Fla.2014); see also Ross v. State, 155 So. 3d 1259, 1259-60 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“[T]he trial court first must hold a hearing to determine whether the defendant’s competency has been restored, review evidence from experts during the hearing, make an independent determination that the defendant’s com…
-
Rumph v. State, 217 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…e Hunter v. State, 174 So. 3d 1011, 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (citing Jackson, 880 So. 2d at 1242); Martinez v. State, 851 So. 2d 832, 834-35 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); see also Shakes v. State, 185 So. 3d 679, 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (citing Ross v. State, 155 So. 3d 1259, 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)). After a defendant has been adjudicated incompetent, a hearing is necessary to overcome the presumption of incompetency and find the defendant competent. See Presley v. State, 199 So. 3d 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (quoting…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014)
- Elizar Samson v. State, 853 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Vestal v. State, 50 So. 3d 733 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Wilson v. State, 902 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Blackmon v. State, 23 So. 3d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)