RHODERICK LEWIS, 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.
Appellant Lewis challenges his nolo contendere plea and sentence, arguing the trial court erred by accepting a stipulation of competency without conducting a formal competency hearing. The court agrees and reverses, holding that once a defendant is declared incompetent, no material stage of prosecution—including plea entry and sentencing—may proceed without proper competency restoration procedures.
The trial court erred by failing to follow required procedures for determining Appellant's competency to proceed. Once a defendant is declared incompetent, no material stage of prosecution, including plea entry and sentencing, may proceed without proper competency restoration procedures. The judgment and sentence must be reversed and remanded for a competency hearing.
[1] Once a defendant is declared incompetent, no material stage of a criminal prosecution, including the entry of a plea and sentencing, may proceed without a determination o…
[2] A trial court must hold a competency hearing and enter a written order determining a defendant's competency before accepting a plea or imposing a sentence after the defen…
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“Once a defendant is declared incompetent, no material stage of a criminal prosecution, including entry of a plea and sentencing, may proceed.”
Establishes the core legal principle that procedural safeguards regarding competency are mandatory and cannot be bypassed through stipulation alone.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court previously declared Appellant incompetent. The parties later stipulated to Appellant's competency, and he entered a nolo contendere pl…
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 Retroactive Competency Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of his judgment and sentence for various offenses following his nolo contendere plea. He contends that the trial court' erred in accepting his plea without conducting a competency hearing to determine that his competency had been restored. Based on the state’s proper concession of error, we reverse and remand.
The trial court previously declared Appellant incompetent. Thereafter, the parties stipulated to Appellant’s competency, and Appellant pled nolo contendere and was sentenced to á lengthy prison term. Appellant' timely füed a motion for post-conviction relief in which he raised the issue of his competency. The trial court found that accepting the stipulation of competency was error and vacated Appellant’s judgment and -sentence! Approximately six months later, in November 2012, after Appellant again pled nolo con-tendere, the trial court accepted the plea and imposed the same sentence. Although the .trial court had ordered .a> competency evaluation of Appellant several months before the second plea and sentencing hearing, the record does not reflect that the court held a competency hearing, reviewed the expert evaluation, or entered a written order determining Appellant’s competency prior to the resentencing hearing. •
Once a defendant is declared incompetent, no material stagé of a criminal prosecution, including entry of a plea and sentencing, may proceed. See Dougherty v. State, 149 So.3d 672, 677-78 (Fla.2014); Ross v. State, 155 So.3d 1259 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.210. Therefore, because the trial court did not follow the required procedures for declaring Appellant competent to enter his plea and, to be sentenced, Appellant’s' judgment' arid sentence must be reversed. On remand, the trial court must hold a hearing to determine Appellant’s conipétency to proceed. If evidence existing at the time of the plea supports a finding that Appellant was competent in November 2012 when he entered' his second plea and was resen-tenced, then the trial court may make a retroactive determination of competency with no change to Appellant’s judgment and sentence. See Dougherty, 149 So.3d at 679. If the trial court cannot make this determination, it must conduct a proper determination of Appellant’s competency and, if the court finds Appellant compe-terit, the case must proceed to trial or a new plea. See id.; Brooks v. State, 180 So.3d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Cotton v. State, 177 So.3d 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Reynolds v. State, 177 So.3d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
WOLF, WETHERELL, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hendrix v. State, 228 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…, 531 So. 2d 1347, 1348 (Fla. 1988). .Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210, “[o]nce a defendant. is declared incompetent, no material stage of a criminal prosecution, including entry of a plea and sentencing, may proceed.” Lewis v. State, 190 So. 3d 208, 209 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). Once the court has reasonable grounds to question the defendant’s competency, the court has no choice but to conduct a hearing. Brooks v. State, 180 So. 3d 1094, 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (quoting Cotton v. State, 177 So. 3d…
-
Vernson Edward Dortch v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014)
- Brooks v. State, 180 So. 3d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Reynolds v. State, 177 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Cotton v. State, 177 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Bennie John Ross v. State, 155 So. 3d 1259 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)