Dougherty v. State
| Decision Date | 16 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. SC12–2365.,SC12–2365. |
| Citation | 149 So.3d 672 |
| Parties | Bernard J. DOUGHERTY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Carlos Fernando Gonzalez and Paola M. Sanchez Torres of Diaz, Reus & Targ, LLP, Miami, FL, for Petitioner.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, and Wesley Harold Heidt, Bureau Chief, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, FL, for Respondent.
Bernard Joseph Dougherty seeks review of the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Dougherty v. State, 96 So.3d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Macaluso v. State, 12 So.3d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), on a question of law. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the following reasons, we quash in part the Fifth District's decision in Dougherty and approve Macaluso to the extent it is consistent with this opinion because a defendant's stipulation to his own competency does not absolve the trial court from its duty to independently make a determination of a defendant's competency to proceed. As discussed in more detail below, however, Dougherty's claim is procedurally barred.
Dougherty was charged with resisting an officer with violence; acquiring a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge; and criminal use of personal identification information in March 2000.1 Shortly thereafter, the trial court entered an order appointing three experts for a competency determination.2 In August 2002, the court entered an order declaring Dougherty incompetent to proceed to trial, and Dougherty was committed to the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF). In the order, the trial court noted that Dougherty was diagnosed with psychotic disorder and could not presently understand the charges or allegations.
On January 24, 2003, the trial court entered an order to transfer Dougherty to the Florida Department of Corrections because DCF determined that Dougherty no longer met the criteria for commitment. On February 28, 2003, Dougherty appeared before the court for a status hearing regarding competency. The following is the entire transcript of the status hearing:
Subsequently, on July 10, 2003, defense counsel filed a motion to determine Dougherty's competency to stand trial pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(a). The trial court granted the motion and appointed three experts for a competency determination.3 The experts were directed to submit written reports to the court, with copies to the attorneys, on September 3, 2003. On September 10, 2003, the parties appeared before the Court for a competency hearing. The following is the entire transcript of this proceeding:
The court did not refer to Dougherty's competency again and did not enter a written order determining that Dougherty was competent to proceed to trial. Nevertheless, the matter proceeded to a two-day jury trial on the charges of resisting arrest with violence, and acquiring a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge. The jury found Dougherty guilty of both charges.4 Dougherty was sentenced to prison for consecutive ten-year sentences as a habitual felony offender.
On April 19, 2009, Dougherty filed an amended motion to correct an illegal sentence. The trial court summarily denied the amended motion and Dougherty appealed. The Fifth District reversed in part, finding that the trial court erred in sentencing Dougherty as a habitual felony offender for the charge of acquiring a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge. On July 2, 2010, nearly seven years after the September 10, 2003, competency hearing, Dougherty appeared for resentencing. At this resentencing hearing, defense counsel raised the issue of Dougherty's competency, alleging that Dougherty had never been evaluated and did not have a hearing regarding competency. On August 11, 2010, Dougherty again appeared at a hearing for resentencing, and again defense counsel raised the issue of Dougherty's competency. The trial court, however, did not consider the competency issue. Instead, the court resentenced Dougherty, finding that Dougherty was a habitual felony offender as to count one—resisting an officer with violence. The trial court reduced the sentence for count two—acquiring a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge—to five years, to run consecutively with the sentence of count one.
Dougherty raised the issue of his competency on appeal to the Fifth District. Dougherty, 96 So.3d at 984. Dougherty argued that the lack of a written order adjudicating him competent required reversal of his conviction and a new trial. Id. at 985. He also argued that he did not receive a proper and sufficient hearing. Id. The Fifth District held that the lack of a written order could be cured without a new trial because it was apparent from the record that the trial court found Dougherty competent based on the representation and stipulation of defense counsel. Further, the Fifth District held that the hearing was sufficient because the trial court was authorized to base its competency finding on written evaluations stipulated to by Dougherty at a properly scheduled competency hearing. Id.
Dougherty filed a timely notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court alleging conflict with Macaluso, in which the defendant was found incompetent and sent to a facility. 12 So.3d at 915. Five months later, the court held a hearing at which defense counsel informed the court that Macaluso had been found competent based on evaluations obtained by the Public Defender's Office. Id. Without additional evidence or a hearing, the court declared Macaluso competent to proceed to trial. Macaluso's attorney later informed the court before jury selection that facility doctors had also found him competent to be tried. After he was found guilty of multiple offenses, he appealed the conviction on the grounds that the competency issue was improperly decided. The Fourth District held that the conviction had to be set aside and Macaluso was entitled to a new trial if determined to be competent because Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(c)(7) did not contemplate lawyers stipulating to restored competency without an evidentiary hearing.5
Id. The Fourth District reasoned that it had previously determined that a court must hold a hearing and enter an order finding the defendant competent before proceeding to trial. Id. Accordingly, Dougherty and Macaluso conflict because the district courts reached different conclusions on whether a court can determine a defendant to be competent based on the stipulation of counsel, and whether a new trial is necessary under such circumstances. We now turn to the merits.
Before discussing the proper procedures to be followed in competency determinations, we note that Dougherty raised this issue for the first time at a resentencing hearing on remand after the Fifth District reversed the trial court's summary denial of his amended motion to correct an illegal sentence, which occurred nearly seven years after his original competency hearing before trial. Thus, Dougherty's claim is procedurally barred because he did not raise this issue on direct appeal. See Thompson v. State, 88 So.3d 312, 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ; see also Wickham v. State, 124 So.3d 841, 861–62 (Fla.2013) ; Bundy v. State, 538 So.2d 445, 447 (Fla.1989). As a result, we do not address application of our holding to the specific circumstances of his case. We resolve the conflict, however, to stress the importance of competency determinations to criminal proceedings and to ensure that courts follow the specific procedures outlined in Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.210 –3.212. Indeed, 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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
...court must take certain steps before proceeding, regardless of whether the defendant pursues the matter or not. Dougherty v. State , 149 So.3d 672, 677-78 (Fla. 2014) (determining that once a trial court has reasonable grounds to believe the defendant is incompetent and orders an examinatio......
-
Rosier v. State
...made an independent determination that Rosier was competent and fully complied with the requirements expressed in Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014), and Merriell v. State, 169 So. 3d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)[,] by holding a hearing, making an independent determination that Appe......
-
Mullens v. State
...that a trial court must delineate its findings regarding the competency of the defendant in a written order. Dougherty v. State, 149 So.3d 672, 676, 679 (Fla.2014) (noting that the claim in that case was procedurally barred because the defendant first raised the issue in a postconviction pr......
-
Johnson v. State
...trial court must take certain steps before proceeding, regardless of whether the defendant pursues the matter or not. Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672, 677-78 (Fla. 2014) (determining that once a trial court has reasonable grounds to believe the defendant is incompetent and orders an exam......