DANA PETERSON
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 commits fundamental error when it finds a defendant competent to proceed based on defense counsel's stipulation without reviewing the expert's report, making an independent determination of competency, and entering a written order to that effect.
[1] A trial court must independently review a competency evaluation, make its own determination regarding a defendant's competency to proceed, and enter a written order memor…
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 intelligenceThe trial court found appellant competent to proceed based on defense counsel's stipulation, without reviewing the expert's competency report or enter…
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
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D18-1416 _____________________________
DANA PETERSON,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee. _____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. John H. Skinner, Judge.
October 3, 2019
PER CURIAM.
The trial court committed fundamental error in finding that Appellant was competent to proceed based on defense counsel’s stipulation where there is no indication that the trial court reviewed the expert’s report, made an independent determination that Appellant’s competency had been restored, or entered a written order to that effect. See Davis v. State, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2059 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 13, 2019); Robinson v. State, 250 So. 3d 777, 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); Zern v. State, 191 So. 3d 962, 964-65 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a retroactive determination of competency, if possible. Davis, 44 Fla. L. Weekly at D2059; Robinson, 250 So. 3d at 778-79; Zern, 191 So. 3d at 965. If the trial court finds that Appellant was competent at the time he entered his plea, it must enter a nunc pro tunc written
2
order memorializing that finding with no change in the judgment. See Bowden v. State, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2261 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 9, 2019). However, if the trial court cannot make a retroactive determination, it must allow Appellant to withdraw his plea and adjudicate his present competency to proceed. Id. REVERSED and REMANDED. RAY, C.J., and BILBREY and JAY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Megan Long, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.