JAMES ALBERT POLLOCK
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 trial court must conduct a competency hearing and issue a written competency order when it has reasonable grounds to believe a defendant is not competent, even after receiving a competency evaluation.
[1] A trial court must conduct a competency hearing and issue a written competency order pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.210 and 3.212 once reasonable groun…
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“Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210 requires a court to conduct a competency hearing "once it has reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal defendant is not competent to proceed."”
Establishing the mandatory requirement for a competency hearing
Appellant raised competency concerns before entering a nolo contendere plea. Although a competency examiner found appellant competent, at the plea hea…
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 Evaluation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this case, appellant timely raised the issue of his competency before entering a nolo contendere plea. The trial court ordered appellant examined to determine competency. Appellant was found competent by the examiner. However, at the subsequent plea hearing, defense counsel noted that appellant “still had some issues.” Without conducting a competency hearing or entering a written order on competency, the trial court accepted Appellant’s plea, adjudicated him guilty, and imposed sentence. Appellant and the state agree that reversal is required, but disagree as to the proper remedy.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210 requires a court to conduct a competency hearing “once it has reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal defendant is not competent to proceed.” Hawks v. State, 226 So. 3d 892, 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (citation omitted). Following such a hearing, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212 requires a trial court to issue a written competency order. Id. at 894. The trial court here erred, as even after learning of the results of the competency evaluation, it was
2
required to hold a hearing to independently determine competency. Id. (citing Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.210(b)). We therefore reverse for the trial court to conduct a nunc pro tunc competency evaluation, if possible. Id. at 895. If a retroactive competency determination is impossible, the trial court should vacate the judgment and sentence and set the case for trial. See id.; see also Dortch v. State, Nos. 4D16-2815 and 4D16-2816, 2018 WL 1617082, at *2 (Fla. 4th DCA April 4, 2018).
Reversed and remanded. LEVINE, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MacHin v. State, 267 So. 3d 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Dortch v. State, 242 So. 3d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
- Matthew v. Hawks, 226 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)