JAMIE PEARL JONES
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.
The trial court's competency determination was affirmed despite the dissent's argument that the court improperly relied on a stipulation without independently evaluating whether Jones had regained competency.
[1] A trial court cannot properly determine that a previously incompetent defendant has regained competency to stand trial based solely on a stipulation from defense counsel…
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“Accepting a stipulation improperly absolves the trial court from making an independent determination regarding a defendant's competency to stand trial.”
Dougherty v. State, cited in dissent for the principle that courts cannot rely solely on stipulations for competency determinations
Jones had been previously deemed incompetent to stand trial but was adjudged competent six months before trial based on defense counsel's stipulation …
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 Independent Determination Of Competency cases and more on FLexlaw
B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and LEWIS, J., concur; MAKAR, J., dissents with opinion.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
2
MAKAR, J., dissenting.
Six months prior to trial, Jamie Pearl Jones—previously deemed incompetent to stand trial—was adjudged competent to do so based on his lawyer’s stipulation and a new report that Jones had regained competency. The pre-trial judge orally announced his ruling of competency, despite never seeing or seeking a copy of the new report (essentially relying on defense counsel’s stipulation and assertion that the report was “confidential”). A standard form order followed. Under these circumstances, the pre-trial judge abdicated his responsibility to make an independent determination that a once-incompetent defendant has become competent to go to trial. Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672, 678 (Fla. 2014) (“Accepting a stipulation improperly absolves the trial court from making an independent determination regarding a defendant’s competency to stand trial.”); Belizaire v. State, 188 So. 3d 933, 935 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (finding the trial court’s acceptance of defense counsel’s “stipulation that because both experts found [defendant] competent, they could proceed with the trial” to be insufficient). A remand and nunc pro tunc competency evaluation is required, absent which a new trial is required. See Brooks v. State, 180 So. 3d 1094, 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“[A] new trial is required only if the trial court is unable to conduct a nunc pro tunc evaluation of the defendant’s competency at the time of the original trial.”).
_____________________________
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Glenna Joyce Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014)
- Brooks v. State, 180 So. 3d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)