Addison v. State

327 So.3d 979 (Mem)

Robert ADDISON III, Petitioner,

v.STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D21-1237

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

November 17, 2021

Charlie Coffer, Public Defender, and Elizabeth H. Webb, Assistant Public Defender, Jacksonville, for Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Welch, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

Petitioner seeks certiorari review of orders denying a court-ordered expert competency evaluation and adjudicating Petitioner competent to proceed. Because we conclude that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in failing to appoint an expert to conduct a competency evaluation after finding reasonable grounds existed to question Petitioner's competency, we grant the petition and quash the orders.

I.

After Petitioner was charged with battery on an emergency medical care provider, defense counsel filed a "Suggestion of Mental Incompetence to Proceed" pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210 based on the following: (1) Petitioner "was under Baker Act when he was arrested in this case"; (2) Petitioner was previously found incompetent to proceed; and (3) Petitioner did not appear to understand the concept of negotiation and was unable to aid in the preparation of his defense. Defense counsel requested that the court appoint one or more psychiatrists or psychologists to determine Petitioner's mental competence.

The trial court held a hearing during which defense counsel asserted that the court had a duty to appoint a neutral expert to evaluate Petitioner's competency because there were reasonable grounds to suspect that Petitioner was not competent. The court took issue with defense counsel's position that the court was required to appoint an expert—which would be paid by the court system—as opposed to the defense hiring an expert to conduct the competency examination—which would be paid by the public defender's office. Defense counsel responded that "[t]he issue for competency is so material, it's so fundamental, that it's incumbent upon the court to resolve this issue and the Court is on notice about this." Defense counsel also explained:

[T]he issue with this is that competency is a concern for all parties. Competency is a concern for the State, it's a concern for the P.D., it's a concern for the court system as to whether or not this person can freely and voluntarily enter a plea.

When the court inquired if it could hold a competency hearing while denying the motion to appoint an expert, defense counsel responded that the court was required to both appoint an expert and hold a hearing. The trial court took the matter under advisement.

At a subsequent hearing, the trial court orally announced that it was denying defense counsel's request to appoint an expert to evaluate Petitioner's competency. The court explained:

This is still an adversarial process, and the Court's job is not to get involved in presenting evidence on behalf of criminal defendants. That's the part of the—that's the burden of the attorneys. Now, I'm not going to get involved in appointing experts to evaluate the defendant for the first time which I independently have no basis to have him evaluated. If the defense wants to have him evaluated, that is their prerogative, and I am more than willing and happy to have a competency hearing at the parties’ convenience.

....

Now, I'm sitting here and saying I'm ready for a competency hearing when the parties are ready for a competency hearing. It's not my job to hire an expert to evaluate a defendant as the first expert involved in the case. The case law makes clear that if you want me to evaluate somebody, if you want me to appoint somebody to evaluate them, you need to pay for it, and your office—if you're telling me that you're willing to take on that cost, I'm willing to enter an order saying the Public Defender has—the Public Defendant's Office will pay for John Smith or whoever else you want to evaluate [Petitioner], but you haven't told me you're willing to do that, so I'm not willing to enter an order taking on the burden of the cost of it.

At a third hearing, defense counsel objected to the trial court holding a competency hearing because the court declined to appoint an expert to evaluate Petitioner. Defense counsel argued that reasonable grounds were presented to the court to question Petitioner's competency, citing Petitioner's Baker Act proceedings, the previous findings of Petitioner's incompetence to proceed in other cases, and defense counsel's concerns about Petitioner's ability to understand the proceedings. When the State indicated that it agreed with the court that it was the defense's burden to prove incompetency, defense counsel reiterated that because the defense presented reasonable grounds to question Petitioner's competence to proceed, it was the court's duty to appoint an expert to evaluate Petitioner's competency. At the court's direction, the parties submitted memoranda on the issue.

The trial court subsequently issued an "Order on Defendant's Suggestion of Mental Incomptency [sic] and Objecting to Comptency [sic] Hearing." Although it acknowledged that "reasonable grounds exist to believe the defendant is not mentally competent to proceed ," the court denied the motion for a court-appointed expert because rule 3.210 stated that the court "may order the defendant to be examined," but did not require it. (Emphasis added).

When the parties appeared before the court to reschedule the competency hearing, Petitioner interrupted the court and defense counsel, and the court admonished Petitioner to be quiet. Petitioner asked the court questions about his wallet and the commissary, expressed confusion about his competency, and indicated that he had been in a car accident. At that point, the court muted Petitioner's Zoom microphone and passed the case to a later date.

When the parties again appeared before the court for a competency hearing, no witnesses were called to testify. Defense counsel argued that Petitioner was incompetent to proceed because Petitioner had been committed under the Baker Act twice in 2020, was under the Baker Act when he committed the charged offense, did not understand plea negotiations with the State, and was unable to help in the preparation of his defense. When the State responded that there was a lack of evidence to support a finding of incompetency, defense counsel noted that there was no expert testimony because the trial court denied the motion to appoint an expert. The trial court found Petitioner competent to proceed because Petitioner was presumed competent and neither party presented evidence to prove Petitioner did not have the present ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.

Afterwards, the trial court entered a written order adjudicating Petitioner competent to proceed based on the lack of evidence of incompetency to overcome the presumption of competency. The court further noted:

Lastly, the defense also made an argument that the Court's failure to appoint an expert to evaluate the Defendant is the reason why the defense did not have evidence or a medical expert to present at the competency hearing. First, the defense may retain its own expert at any time it chooses. More importantly, the Court did not have independent reasonable grounds to believe the defendant may not have the sufficient present ability to consult with his attorney and aid in the preparation and presentation of his defense. At various court hearings, although limited in interaction, [Petitioner] spoke on the record and appeared to understand the nature of the proceedings. He answered and responded to questions and knew when to listen and respond to questions from counsel and the trial court. At this stage of the proceedings, he does not present any reasonable grounds for the Court to believe he does not have a rational understanding of the proceedings.

This petition followed.

II.

"It has long been accepted that a person whose mental condition is such that he lacks the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his defense may not be subjected to a trial." Drope v. Missouri , 420 U.S. 162, 171, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975). "[T]he failure to observe procedures adequate to protect a defendant's right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to stand trial deprives him of his due process right to a fair trial." Id. at 172, 95 S.Ct. 896. "If the trial court is presented with reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant may not have the sufficient present ability to consult with his attorney and aid in the preparation and presentation of his defense, the trial court must order a hearing and examination." Brockman v. State , 852 So. 2d 330, 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (emphasis added).

While it is true that due process demands that a criminal defendant be psychiatrically evaluated if there is reason to doubt his competency , Scott v. State , 420 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1982), there is no constitutional right to two evaluations. In Drope v. Missouri , 420 U.S. 162, 95 S. Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed. 2d 103 (1975), a statute requiring only one expert psychiatric evaluation was declared "constitutionally adequate to protect a defendant's right not to be tried while legally incompetent." Id. at 173, 95 S. Ct. at 904.

D'Oleo-Valdez v. State , 531 So. 2d 1347, 1348 (Fla. 1988) (emphasis added).

"In evaluating the defendant's competence to stand trial, the appointed experts shall consider ‘whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether the defendant has a rational, as well as factual, understanding of the pending proceedings.’ " Losada v. State , 260 So. 3d 1156, 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (quoting Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.211(a)(1) ). "After the competency hearing, the...