Otis Blaxton v. State of Florida ( 2016 )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
OTIS BLAXTON, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D15-318
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed March 17, 2016.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County.
Robert Groeb, Judge.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and A. Victoria Wiggins, Assistant Public
Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), this
Court’s review of the record revealed that Appellant’s competency was questioned,
but the record below did not include a competency evaluation or reflect that the
trial court conducted a hearing or issued an order on Appellant’s competency. We
therefore issued an order pursuant to State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1987),
requiring Appellant’s counsel to address these issues. After providing supplements
to the record, Appellant’s counsel filed an amended brief advising that, although
Appellant’s trial counsel stated on the record at a pre-trial hearing that he knew the
evaluating expert had concluded that Appellant was competent to stand trial and
“there’s no legal issue in that area to prevent us from going forward,” there is no
evidence in the record that the trial court reviewed the competency evaluation
report or entered an order adjudicating Appellant competent to proceed. The State
then filed with this Court supplemental records including a copy of the competency
evaluation report, which did conclude that Appellant was competent to proceed to
trial. However, it appears the report itself has not yet been filed with the clerk of
the lower tribunal, and the record does not reflect that the requirements of judicial
review and adjudication of competency were met below.
As we held recently in Brooks v. State, 180 So. 3d 1094, 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA
2015), these circumstances require that we reverse and remand for adjudication of
whether Appellant was competent at the time he was tried:
Because there is no indication that the trial court conducted a
competency hearing or ruled on Brooks’ competency, we are
compelled to reverse the judgments and sentences. On remand, the
court shall hold a hearing to determine Brooks’s competency to stand
trial. If there is evidence that existed previously which supports a
finding that Brooks was competent at the time of trial, the court may
make a determination of competency, nunc pro tunc, with no change
in the judgment. . . . However, if the court cannot make a retroactive
2
determination, it must properly adjudicate Brooks’s present
competency and, if Brooks is competent to proceed, conduct a new
trial.
Here, unlike in Brooks, it is undisputed that a competency evaluation was
completed. Therefore the trial court may be able to find, nunc pro tunc, that
Appellant was competent at the time of his previous trial. This does, however,
require a hearing and entry of an order adjudicating Appellant competent nunc pro
tunc to the date of his trial. Id.; see also Cotton v. State, 177 So. 3d 666, 668 (Fla.
1st DCA 2015) (requiring competency hearing on remand).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
WOLF, THOMAS, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
3