ANTWAN T. MANN, 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.
Antwan T. Mann appealed his felony battery conviction, arguing the trial court erred by proceeding to trial without conducting a competency hearing after his public defender raised a suggestion of mental incompetency. The court agreed and remanded for a retroactive competency evaluation.
It is reversible error for a trial court to continue with criminal proceedings without making a competency determination where it has reasonable grounds to believe that a defendant is incompetent to proceed. The case is remanded for the trial court to conduct a retroactive competency evaluation.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error by proceeding with criminal proceedings without a competency determination when it has reasonable grounds to question a defendant's…
[2] Upon remand, a trial court may conduct a retroactive competency evaluation if it can make a nunc pro tunc finding based on contemporaneous evaluations and due process gua…
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“It is reversible error for a trial court to continue with criminal proceedings without making a competency determination where it has reasonable grounds to believe that a defendant is incompetent to proceed.”
Establishes the core legal principle that failure to conduct a competency hearing when there are reasonable grounds to question competency is reversible error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMann's public defender filed a suggestion of mental incompetency to stand trial. The trial court continued the case to trial without holding a compete…
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 Due Process Guarantees cases and more on FLexlaw
Antwan T. Mann appeals his judgment and sentence for felony battery. Mann contends that the trial court erred in continuing the case to trial without holding a hearing or entering an order to determine his competency after his public defender filed a suggestion of mental incompetency to stand trial. The State concedes error. We agree and remand for the trial court to conduct a retroactive competency evaluation.
It is reversible error for a trial court to continue with criminal proceedings without making a competency determination where it has reasonable grounds to believe that a defendant is incompetent to proceed. See Carrion v. State, 859 So.2d 563, 565 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) ("[T]he trial judge had been presented with reasonable grounds to question the mental competency of Mr. Carrion at a pretrial stage. Once having come to this conclusion, he was required by the rule to follow the prescribed procedure and to hold a competency hearing."). The Fourth District Court has explained the appropriate procedure after a case has been remanded for a trial court to make a retroactive determination of competency:
Thus, on remand, if the court can make a nunc pro tunc finding as to appellant's competency based upon the existence of evaluations performed contemporaneous with trial and without relying solely on a cold record, and can do so in a manner which abides by due process guarantees, then it should do so and enter a corresponding written order.
Baker v. State, 221 So.3d 637, 641 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ; accord Holland v. State, 185 So.3d 636, 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ("Accordingly, we remand the case to the trial court for entry of a nunc pro tunc order finding Holland competent to stand trial."). In making this determination, "[t]he parties may agree to the use of the previous evaluators' written reports, which shall be filed with the court and placed in the record." Sheheane v. State, 228 So.3d 1178, 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). If the trial court determines that Mann was competent at the time of trial, it must enter a nunc pro tunc written order without altering his judgment. See Zern v. State, 191 So.3d 962, 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). "If the trial court finds that [the defendant] was incompetent or that a retrospective determination is not possible in this case, it must hold a new trial, as long as [the defendant] is and remains competent on remand." Id.
We therefore remand this case for the trial court to make a retroactive competency *1133determination consistent with this opinion.
REMANDED.
SAWAYA, WALLIS and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)…ession of error, we reverse and remand for a competency hearing and a nunc pro tunc determination, if possible, as to whether Appellant was competent to proceed to trial. See Yancy v. State, 280 So. 3d 1112, 1113 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019); Mann v. State, 254 So. 3d 1131, 1132 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). If the court finds that Appellant was competent at the time of trial, it must enter a nunc pro tunc order memorializing that finding with no change in the judgment or sentence. Yancy, 280 So. 3d at 1113. If a retroactive d…
-
Mann v. State, 269 So. 3d 640 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)…argued that the trial court failed to conduct a hearing and enter an order determining his competency. The State conceded error. This Court remanded for the trial court to make a retroactive competency determination, if possible. See Mann v. State, 254 So. 3d 1131 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). On remand, the trial court conducted the requisite hearing and entered a nunc pro tunc order finding that Mann was competent to procced at the time of trial.2 Mann did not timely appeal that order, and he now seeks a belated app…
Authorities Cited
- Zern v. State, 191 So. 3d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
- Sheheane v. State, 228 So. 3d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)
- Baker v. State, 221 So. 3d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
- Carrion v. State, 859 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Holland v. State, 185 So. 3d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)