Moulton v. State
Decision Date | 15 November 2017 |
Docket Number | Case No. 2D16–5416 |
Citation | 230 So.3d 934 |
Parties | Deborah Jean MOULTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Maureen E. Surber, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Linsey Sims–Bohnenstiehl, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
ORDER RELINQUISHING JURISDICTION
Deborah Jean Moulton appeals her conviction and sentence for the reduced charge of principal to manslaughter with a firearm, contending that her due process rights were violated because the trial court did not make an independent determination that she had been restored to competency before it accepted her plea to the reduced charge. Because it is not clear that the trial court made an independent finding of competency, we relinquish jurisdiction for sixty days, as we recently did in Cramer v. State, 213 So.3d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), for the trial court to conduct a new competency hearing.
Moulton's competency was a recurring issue after she was arrested and charged with one count of principal to second-degree murder with a firearm in May 2014.
She was adjudicated incompetent to proceed on October 9, 2014, but the court found her competency restored on January 7, 2015. Moulton was again adjudicated incompetent to proceed on May 6, 2015. On that date, she was committed to the Department of Children and Families (the Department) for treatment.
On August 6, 2015, the administrator of the Department's treatment center forwarded a new competency evaluation report to the court. This report, authored by a staff psychologist and dated August 6, 2015, concluded that Moulton was then competent to proceed. The administrator of the treatment center requested that the court arrange for Moulton to be returned to Collier County for further proceedings.
On August 27, 2015, the trial court held a hearing on Moulton's competence. The hearing began with the following:
Counsel and the court then had a discussion concerning the timing of trial and various pretrial proceedings, which included scheduling an evaluation of Moulton in support of an insanity defense. Then, just before the hearing concluded, the following ensued:
The order actually signed by the trial court states:
After she was adjudged competent, Moulton entered into a negotiated plea with the State to a reduced charge, and she was convicted and sentenced based on her plea. She now contends that the court's acceptance of her plea violated due process because the court did not make an independent determination that she had been restored to competency.
As an initial matter, this issue is properly before this court in this appeal even though Moulton did not file a motion seeking to withdraw her plea. The supreme court has held that a trial court's failure to comply with the requirements of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.210 – 3.212 regarding competency procedures constitutes a violation of due process. See Dougherty v. State, 149 So.3d 672, 676 (Fla. 2014). Moreover, this court has held that a defendant who was adjudicated incompetent before entering a plea may raise the issue of an improper adjudication of competency on direct appeal even in the absence of a motion to withdraw the plea. See Shakes v. State, 185 So.3d 679, 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (quoting Ross v. State, 155 So.3d 1259, 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) ). Hence, we address the issue on the merits.
Turning to those merits, this court summarized the law in this area in its discussion in Shakes.
"An individual who has been adjudicated incompetent is presumed to remain incompetent until adjudicated competent to proceed by a court." Dougherty v. State, 149 So.3d 672, 676 (Fla. 2014) (quoting Jackson v. State, 880 So.2d 1241, 1242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ). Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.210 through 3.212"set forth the required competency hearing procedures for determining whether a defendant is competent to proceed or has been restored to competency." Dougherty, 149 So.3d at 677. Rule 3.210(a) provides that "[a] person accused of an offense or a violation of probation or community control who is mentally incompetent to proceed at any material stage of a criminal proceeding shall not be proceeded against while incompetent." "[W]hen the court receives notice that a defendant has regained competence, the court shall hold a hearing to determine if a defendant is competent to proceed." Roman v. State, 163 So.3d 749, 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (citing Jackson, 880 So.2d at 1242 ); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.212(c). The trial court may take the testimony of court-appointed experts designated under rule 3.211, or where the parties and the trial court agree, the trial court "may decide the issue of competency on the basis of the written reports alone." Dougherty, 149 So.3d at 677–78 (quoting Fowler v. State, 255 So.2d 513, 515 (Fla. 1971) ); see Roman, 163 So.3d at 751 (). The trial court is tasked with making an independent legal determination regarding whether the defendant is competent, after considering the expert testimony or reports and other relevant factors. Dougherty, 149 So.3d at 678 ( ). "[I]f a trial court finds that a defendant is competent to proceed, it must enter a written order so finding." Id.
Shakes, 185 So.3d at 681 (alterations in original) (emphasis added). Hence, while the trial court may rely on the written reports if the parties agree to that procedure, the court may not rely solely on the parties' stipulation to competency, and the record must be clear that the court has made an independent determination of the defendant's competency. In other words, punctilious compliance with the competency restoration procedures set forth in rules 3.210 – 3.212 is required.
Here, nothing in the record unmistakably shows that the trial court made an independent determination of Moulton's competency. The court did not consider the testimony of any experts at the hearing, and nothing in the record shows that the court reviewed and relied upon the report prepared by the psychologist from the treatment center. Cf. Merriell v. State, 169 So.3d 1287, 1288 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) ( ); Molina v. State, 946 So.2d 1103, 1105 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) ( ). The trial court's statement that it had entered the order based on "the information," made at the end of the hearing, is too vague to unequivocally show that the court reviewed and relied on the psychologist's report rather than the parties' agreement. Moreover, the trial court could not have made a determination of competency based on Moulton's actions at the hearing because counsel had waived her appearance and she was not present. See Dougherty, 149 So.3d at 678 ( ). Instead, the only indication in the record is that the trial court relied solely on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dortch v. State
...that all the Second District opinions involved a defendant who had previously been adjudicated incompetent. See Moulton v. State , 230 So.3d 934, 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ; Golloman v. State , 226 So.3d 332, 334 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ; Bylock v. State , 196 So.3d 513, 514–15 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ;......
-
Machin v. State
...2d DCA 2005).Finally, the Second District has taken a fourth approach, but one similar to Fowler . See, e.g. , Moulton v. State , 230 So.3d 934, 938–39 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). The Second District cited Fowler and relinquished jurisdiction to the circuit court to hold a competency hearing, id. a......
-
Elder v. State
...as to competency. She only asked for an order with that finding for her signature, which is insufficient. See Moulton v. State, 230 So.3d 934, 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ("[T]he court may not rely solely on the parties' stipulation to competency, and the record must be clear that the court has ......
-
Carrion v. State, Case No. 2D14–2151
...order on competency. Therefore, we relinquish jurisdiction for sixty days, as we recently did in Moulton v. State, 230 So.3d 934, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2434 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov. 15, 2017), and Cramer v. State, 213 So.3d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), for the trial court to conduct a new competency hear......