Awolowo v. State

1

Alagabara Awolowo, Appellant, v. State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D2022-2062

Florida Court of Appeals, First District

May 22, 2024

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. Kristine Van Vorst, Judge.

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Danielle Jorden Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Daren L. Shippy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

ROWE J.

In State v. Dortch, 317 So.3d 1074, 1080 (Fla. 2021) the Florida Supreme Court posed, but did not answer, this question: "does a trial court's decision to order a psychological evaluation create a constitutional entitlement to a subsequent competency hearing, regardless of whether the information available to the trial court met the evidentiary threshold for invoking the rule 3.210 competency procedures in the first place?" This appeal raises the question posed by the supreme court. And we answer it in the negative.

Facts

Alagabara Awolowo was charged with (1) leaving the scene of an accident involving injury other than serious bodily injury, (2) resisting an officer with violence, (3) willful or wanton reckless driving, and (4) leaving the scene of an accident with property damage to attended vehicle or other property.

These charges arose out of a car accident caused by Awolowo. Awolowo approached a busy intersection in Gainesville at a high rate of speed, side-swiping a truck before turning into oncoming traffic and hitting another vehicle head on. When law enforcement arrived, they found Awolowo wandering out from the woods beside the road. He was naked and disheveled. The officers described Awolowo's behavior as irrational and belligerent-he yelled and cursed at them. When they tried to ask him about the accident, Awolowo said that he was on his way to his village to deliver paperwork for his king. He also told the officers that he had been raped in the woods.

Defense counsel moved for a competency evaluation under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(b) and section 916.115, Florida Statutes. In the motion, counsel alleged no specific facts about Awolowo's competency. Rather, counsel alleged only that he had "a good faith belief that the Defendant suffer[ed] from mental illness or disability and that as a result he/she may be incompetent to proceed." Judge David P. Krieder appointed an expert to examine Awolowo for competency. Within a month, the expert examined Awolowo, found him competent, and filed her report with the court under seal. The report includes an indication that copies of the written report were provided to defense counsel and to the prosecutor-as required by the court's order appointing the expert. The docket shows that the court ordered payment for the expert.

This is the last reference to Awolowo's competency in the record even though the court gave defense counsel multiple opportunities at case management conferences and at a pretrial hearing to raise any pending issues. Even so, counsel neither sought a hearing on Awolowo's competency nor signaled to the court that a competency determination had not been made. Rather, counsel proceeded as if Awolowo were competent to proceed to trial. He obtained a waiver of Awolowo's right to be present at a case management hearing and allowed him to turn down the State's plea offer.

Although defense counsel never revisited Awolowo's competency, Awolowo wrote a letter pro se to the court that described his state of mind at the time of the offense. He explained that "what happened to me on 10/31/2020 was Drug/substance induced Psychosis." Awolowo then asserted that his drug-induced psychosis was caused by a medication (cyclobenzaprine) that had been prescribed to him. Awolowo asked that the trial court allow the admission of records and testimony at trial in support of his defense as to his state of mind at the time of the offense. But at no time did Awolowo argue or suggest that he was not competent to proceed to trial.

Soon after, the State filed a motion in limine, expecting that the defense would "try to present evidence that [Awolowo] was under some sort of involuntary delusion or hallucination based on [Awolowo's] medical records and elevated lactic acid levels."

The case proceeded to trial and a new judge-Judge Kristine Van Vorst-presided. Before beginning jury selection, and again before proceeding to trial, Judge Van Vorst asked defense counsel if there were any initial matters that needed to be resolved. Defense counsel did not alert the new judge that he was concerned about Awolowo's competency or inform her that the prior judge never made a competency determination.

During and after jury selection, the record reflects that Awolowo responded politely and directly when addressed by the trial court judge.

At trial, the drivers of the two vehicles hit by Awolowo testified about the accident, their injuries, and the damages to their vehicles. Neither driver saw Awolowo leave the area. But when Officer Keith Carlisle responded to the scene, he discovered Awolowo about 300 yards away from the crash site. Carlisle followed a trail of cash, clothing, and keys to where Awolowo emerged from the woods.

Awolowo was covered in dirt and white powder from the airbag that deployed during the crash. Carlisle placed Awolowo in restraints to prevent Awolowo from running away. During the interaction, Awolowo demanded to see Carlisle's credentials, and he asked what heavenly body gave Carlisle authority over him. Officer Ronnie Hartley Jr. helped Carlisle detain Awolowo until an ambulance could take Awolowo to the hospital. Hartley described Awolowo as agitated and combative. Awolowo continued to scream that the officers wanted to kill him until the ambulance took him away.

After a colloquy with the trial court, Awolowo affirmed that he had chosen to testify on his own behalf. Awolowo took the stand to explain that none of his actions were willful or intentional. As he was driving, he noticed his heart beating erratically, and he struggled to breathe. He decided to drive to the hospital, but he thought he blacked out for a bit. The last thing he remembered was trying to avoid hitting a vehicle. He did not remember any of his interactions with the police.

Awolowo responded clearly and politely to all questions posed to him on direct and cross-examination. The record does not reflect any inappropriate behavior by Awolowo or any admonition by the trial court to Awolowo concerning his behavior or communications at trial.

The jury acquitted Awolowo on two of the charges-leaving the scene of an accident involving injury and willful or wanton reckless driving. But the jury found him guilty of resisting arrest without violence and leaving the scene of the accident with property damage.

At sentencing, defense counsel stated that Awolowo was "one of the most nice, kindest individuals" he represented. And Awolowo addressed the court to ask for a minimum sentence. The court sentenced Awolowo to sixty days in jail followed by six months of probation. As a condition of his probation, the court ordered Awolowo to complete a mental health evaluation, but it clarified that the requirement was based on Awolowo's behavior at the time of the accident.

On appeal, Awolowo argues that after appointing an expert to evaluate him, the court fundamentally erred by failing to: conduct a competency hearing, make an oral finding of competency, and enter a written order finding him competent. The State concedes error and asks that this court remand to allow the trial court to make a nunc pro tunc determination of Awolowo's competency to proceed to trial. For the reasons below, we reject this concession and find no fundamental error by the trial court.

Analysis

An accused person has a constitutional right not to be tried while incompetent. See Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S 375, 378 (1966); Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171 (1975). This is because "the conviction of an accused person while he is legally incompetent violates due process." Pate, 383 U.S. at 378. When the accused's "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," the trial may not proceed. Drope, 420 U.S. at 171. This prohibition, which existed at common law, recognizes that a mentally incompetent defendant, while physically present in the courtroom, has no meaningful opportunity to defend himself. Id.

To protect a defendant's right to not be tried while incompetent, the United States Supreme Court explained that states must provide adequate procedures to safeguard the right. See Pate, 383 U.S. at 386-87. The Florida Supreme Court adopted Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210 as a procedural mechanism to protect the due process right of a defendant not to proceed to trial while incompetent. See Lane v. State, 388 So.2d 1022, 1025 (Fla. 1980); Dougherty v. State, 149 So.3d 672, 677 (Fla. 2014) ("Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.210-3.212 were enacted to set forth the required competency hearing procedures for determining whether a defendant is competent to proceed or has been restored to competency."). The rule requires a trial court "to conduct a hearing for competency to stand trial whenever it reasonably appears necessary, whether requested or not, to ensure that a defendant meets the standard of competency ...." Lane, 388 So.2d at 1025.

In most cases, defense counsel will raise questions as to defendant's competency and seek an order from the trial court appointing an expert to evaluate the defendant before proceeding...