OTIS BLAXTON, 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.
In this Anders review of a criminal conviction, the court found that while a competency evaluation existed showing the defendant was competent to stand trial, the trial court never formally reviewed the evaluation or entered an order adjudicating competency. The court reversed and remanded for the trial court to hold a hearing and enter an order addressing competency, either nunc pro tunc or de novo.
The conviction must be reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to conduct a competency hearing and enter an order adjudicating competency. On remand, the trial court may hold a hearing and make a nunc pro tunc determination of competency based on the prior evaluation, or if unable to do so retroactively, must adjudicate the defendant's present competency and conduct a new trial if competent.
[1] A trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing and issue a written order making findings as to a defendant's competency when reasonable grounds exist to question that com…
[2] Failure to hold a competency hearing or issue a written order finding a defendant competent to proceed requires vacating the defendant's convictions.
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“Because there is no indication that the trial court conducted a competency hearing or ruled on Brooks' competency, we are compelled to reverse the judgments and sentences.”
Establishes the core principle that failure to conduct a competency hearing and enter an order requires reversal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Blaxton's competency was questioned during his case. A competency evaluation was completed concluding that Appellant was competent to procee…
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 Stand Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), this Court’s review of the record revealed that Appellant’s competency was questioned, but the record below did not include a competency evaluation or reflect that the trial court conducted a hearing or issued an order on Appellant’s competency. We therefore issued an order pursuant to State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987), requiring Appellant’s counsel to address these issues. After providing supplements to the record, Appellant’s counsel filed an amended brief advising that, although Appellant’s trial counsel stated on the record at a pre-trial hearing that he knew the evaluating expert had concluded that Appellant was competent to stand trial and “there’s no legal issue in that area to prevent us from going forward,” there is no evidence in the record that the trial court reviewed the competency evaluation report- or entered an order adjudicating Appellant competent to proceed. The State then filed with this Court supplemental records including a copy of the competency evaluation report, which did conclude that Appellant was competent to proceed to trial. However, it appears the report itself has not yet been filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal, and the record does not reflect that the *49requirements of judicial review and adjudication of competency were met below.
As we held recently in Brooks v. State, 180 So.3d 1094, 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), these circumstances require that we reverse and remand for adjudication of whether Appellant was competent at the time he was tried:
Because there is no indication that the trial court conducted a competency hearing or ruled on Brooks’ competency, we are compelled to reverse the judgments and sentences. On remand, the court shall hold a hearing to determine Brooks’s competency to stand trial. If there is evidence that existed previously which supports a finding that Brooks was competent at the time of trial, the court may make a determination of competency, nunc pro tunc, with no change in the judgment. ... However, if the court cannot make a retroactive determination, it must properly adjudicate Brooks’s present competency and, if Brooks is competent to proceed, conduct a new trial.
Here, unlike in Brooks, it is undisputed that a competency evaluation was completed. Therefore the trial court may be able to find, nunc pro tunc, that Appellant was competent at the time of his previous trial. This does, however, require a hearing and entry of an order adjudicating Appellant competent nunc pro tunc to the date of his trial. Id.; see also Cotton v. State, 177 So.3d 666, 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (requiring competency hearing on remand).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
WOLF, THOMAS, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kendrick Silver v. State, 193 So. 3d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…uct a competency hearing.” Carrion, 859 So. 2d at 565. The fact that the experts’ reports were not filed and the trial court did not adjudicate Silver competent to proceed would have entitled him to a reversal on direct appeal. See Blaxton v. State, 188 So. 3d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (reversing conviction where defense counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), but court’s own examination of record revealed that competency evaluation report had…
-
Kerven Charles v. State, 223 So. 3d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…allenged convictions and sentences because the trial court appointed experts to examine Silver to determine whether he was competent to proceed, but never held a competency hearing or ruled on his competence before he was tried.”); Blaxton v. State, 188 So. 3d 48, 48-49 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (reversing for further proceedings where, although it was undisputed that a competency evaluation was completed, the report had not been filed in the lower tribunal and “the record does not reflect that the requirements of…
-
Graham v. State, 244 So. 3d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
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
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1987)
- Brooks v. State, 180 So. 3d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Cotton v. State, 177 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)