EUGENE C. BAIN, 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's conviction and sentence reversed because the trial court failed to conduct a competency hearing and make an independent determination of competency before accepting his guilty plea, despite having ordered a competency evaluation.
A trial court must conduct a competency hearing and make an independent written determination of competency even when a competency evaluation has been ordered, and a defendant does not waive this right merely because experts find him competent.
[1] When a trial court orders a competency evaluation, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(b) requires the court to conduct a competency hearing and make an independent…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Although the trial court, when the parties agree, may decide the issue of competency on the basis of written reports alone, it cannot dispense with its duty to make an independent determination about a defendant's competency, and must enter a written order if the defendant is found competent to proceed.”
Dougherty v. State, establishing that trial courts must make independent competency determinations despite expert reports or party agreement.
Appellant was convicted after entering a guilty plea. The trial court had ordered a competency evaluation but proceeded with the change of plea hearin…
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 Nunc Pro Tunc Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant challenges his conviction and sentence on the ground that the court erred by proceeding with his change of plea hearing without determining his competency in accordance with the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.210-3.212, when the court had earlier ordered a competency evaluation. We reverse. See Deferrell v. State, 199 So.3d 1056, 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (holding that where the court ordered a competency evaluation, rule 3.210(b) requires a competency hearing and a determination of competency by the court, and defendant does not waive the right to a competency hearing even if experts find him competent); see also Dougherty v. State, 149 So.3d 672, 679 (Fla. 2014) (“Although the trial court, *140when the parties agree, may decide the issue of competency on the basis of written reports alone, it cannot dispense with its duty to make an independent determination about a defendant’s competency, and must enter a written order if the defendant is found competent to proceed.”) Consistent with Dougherty, we remand to the trial court to determine whether a nunc pro tunc competency determination can be made. Id, In this case, the record suggests that an expert evaluated appellant shortly before the change of plea and found him competent. Therefore, on remand, the expert would not be trying to ascertain appellant’s competency from a “cold record.” Id. (quoting Jones v. State, 740 So.2d 520, 523 (Fla. 1999). If, however, the court cannot determine appellant’s competency consistent with due process guarantees, the court should vacate the plea and sentence.
Warner, Gross and May, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dortch v. State, 242 So. 3d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
-
Matthew v. Hawks, 226 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…if the expert [*895] and fact witnesses are able to testify based upon observations and conclusions made contemporaneously with the court’s earlier adjudication. Id.; see also A.L.Y. v. State, 212 So. 3d 399, 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); Bain v. State, 211 So. 3d 139, 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). In determining whether a nunc pro tunc evaluation is possible, the court must be mindful of the Defendant’s due process rights and must not make a nunc pro tunc determination if those rights are not protected. Baker, 221 S…
-
D.B. v. State, 222 So. 3d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…the [juvenile] contemporaneous with the relevant stage of the proceeding and are available to offer pertinent evidence at a retrospective hearing,” A.L.Y. v. State, 212 So. 3d 399, 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (citation omitted); see also Bain v. State, 211 So. 3d 139, 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). We therefore vacate the court’s adjudication of delinquency. Oh remand the court should determine whether a nunc pro tunc competency determination can be made in a manner that comports with due process. If the court determ…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Jones v. State, 740 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1999)
- Barrington Deferrell v. State, 199 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Thomas v. State, 199 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)