Arnold v. State

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
OB AKEEM RENDELL ARNOLD, )
)
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2D15-2275
)
STATE OF FLORIDA, )
)
Appellee. )
___________________________________ )
Opinion filed March 17, 2017.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier
County; Lauren L. Brodie, Judge.
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and
Matthew J. Salvia, Assistant Public
Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Susan M. Shanahan,
Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for
Appellee.
KHOUZAM, Judge.
Ob Akeem Rendell Arnold appeals his convictions and sentences for
robbery while wearing a mask and resisting an officer without violence. We affirm in all
respects but remand for the entry of a written competency order.
Arnold argues that he was deprived of due process because the circuit
court failed to conduct a sufficient competency hearing and instead relied solely on the
parties' stipulation that he was competent. In Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla.
2014), the Florida Supreme Court delineated the appropriate procedure for addressing
a defendant's competency, emphasizing that "it is necessary for courts to observe the
specific hearing requirements set forth in the rules in order to safeguard a defendant's
due process right to a fair trial and to provide the reviewing court with an adequate
record on appeal." Id. at 676. The supreme court held that
[a]lthough the trial court, when the parties agree, may decide
the issue of competency on the basis of written reports
alone, it cannot dispense with its duty to make an
independent determination about a defendant's competency,
and must enter a written order if the defendant is found
competent to proceed.
Id. at 679. A defendant cannot simply stipulate that he is competent, even when all of
the experts agree that he is competent, because "[a]ccepting a stipulation improperly
absolves the trial court from making an independent determination regarding a
defendant's competency to stand trial." Id. at 678. "In particular, the rules do not
contemplate such stipulations where the trial court has previously concluded that a
particular defendant is incompetent and his competency has yet to be restored."
Id.In the instant case, Arnold was never found to be incompetent. And even
though the parties did stipulate to the findings contained in the doctor's report, the trial
court specifically stated that it was finding Arnold competent "based on the report and
the findings contained therein," as opposed to simply accepting the parties' stipulation.
-2-
So the record shows that the court made an independent determination regarding
Arnold's competency.
However, the court did fail to enter a written order. Accordingly, we must
remand for the entry of a nunc pro tunc order adjudicating Arnold competent to proceed.
See Holland v. State, 185 So. 3d 636, 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).
Affirmed; remanded with instructions.
LUCAS and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
-3-