Eddie Jermain Williams v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Eddie Jermain Williams v. State of Florida

225 So. 3d 872, 2017 WL 2297502, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7622

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 25, 2017

DocketCASE NO. 1D16-1812

StatusPublished

This text of 225 So. 3d 872 (Eddie Jermain Williams v. State of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eddie Jermain Williams v. State of Florida, 225 So. 3d 872, 2017 WL 2297502, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7622 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Eddie Jermain Williams seeks review of his conviction and sentence for robbery. He asserts that the court failed to determine his competency to stand trial after having reason to question whether he was competent. The state concedes that reversal is warranted. We agree and reverse.

Prior to trial, Appellant’s counsel filed a Motion to Appoint Expert(s) for Competency Evaluation, asserting that Appellant was unable to communicate with counsel about the facts of his case and understand the nature of the charges against him. The trial court appointed an expert to evaluate Appellant for competency to proceed. However, the record lacks any expert reports or findings of the trial court related to Appellant’s competency prior to trial.

“It is a due process violation to proceed against an incompetent criminal defendant.” Cotton v. State, 177 So.3d 666, 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). If, after having reasonable grounds to question á defendant’s competency, “the trial court fails to hold a competency hearing or enter a written order of competency, reversal is required.” Brooks v. State, 180 So.3d 1094, 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). On remand, the trial court shall make a written determination as to whether Appellant was competent to stand trial. “If there is evidence that existed previously which supports a finding that [Appellant] was competent at the time of trial, the court may make a determination of competency, nunc pro tunc, with no change in the judgment.” Id. at 1096. If the court cannot retroactively determine Appellant’s competency at the time of the first trial, however, then it shall evaluate Appellant’s present competency and, if he is competent to proceed, conduct a new trial. See id.

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

WETHERELL, OSTERHAUS, and M.K THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Eddie Jermain Williams seeks review of his conviction and sentence for robbery. He asserts that the court failed to determine his competency to stand trial after having reason to question whether he was competent. The state concedes that reversal is warranted. We agree and reverse.

Prior to trial, Appellant’s counsel filed a Motion to Appoint Expert(s) for Competency Evaluation, asserting that Appellant was unable to communicate with counsel about the facts of his case and understand the nature of the charges against him. The trial court appointed an expert to evaluate Appellant for competency to proceed. However, the record lacks any expert reports or findings of the trial court related to Appellant’s competency prior to trial.

“It is a due process violation to proceed against an incompetent criminal defendant.” Cotton v. State, 177 So.3d 666, 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). If, after having reasonable grounds to question á defendant’s competency, “the trial court fails to hold a competency hearing or enter a written order of competency, reversal is required.” Brooks v. State, 180 So.3d 1094, 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). On remand, the trial court shall make a written determination as to whether Appellant was competent to stand trial. “If there is evidence that existed previously which supports a finding that [Appellant] was competent at the time of trial, the court may make a determination of competency, nunc pro tunc, with no change in the judgment.” Id. at 1096. If the court cannot retroactively determine Appellant’s competency at the time of the first trial, however, then it shall evaluate Appellant’s present competency and, if he is competent to proceed, conduct a new trial. See id.

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

WETHERELL, OSTERHAUS, and M.K THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 So. 3d 872, 2017 WL 2297502, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eddie-jermain-williams-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack