Sallee v. State
Decision Date | 18 April 2018 |
Docket Number | Case No. 2D16–5407 |
Citation | 244 So.3d 1143 |
Parties | William SALLEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and William L. Sharwell, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and John M. Klawikofsky, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
William Sallee appeals the judgment and sentences imposed following entry of his guilty plea. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A), 9.140(b)(1)(A). We affirm his conviction. However, because the trial court made an oral determination of competency without entry of the requisite written order, we remand for the trial court to enter a written nunc pro tunc order finding Mr. Sallee competent to stand trial.
Mr. Sallee was charged with several offenses arising from his use of a cellphone to record videos and take pictures of sleeping girls. Questions quickly arose concerning his competency to proceed. Defense counsel successfully moved for an order appointing two mental health experts to evaluate Mr. Sallee. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.210(b) (). Each expert filed a written report concluding that Mr. Sallee was competent.
The trial court then conducted a competency hearing. Mr. Sallee attended the hearing with counsel. Neither side called a witness. Instead, defense counsel recounted the contents of the experts' reports. Upon questioning by the trial court, defense counsel conceded that each expert had found Mr. Sallee competent. The State agreed. The trial court instructed defense counsel to prepare an order finding Mr. Sallee competent. No such order appears in our records.
Later, Mr. Sallee pleaded guilty. Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, the trial court sentenced him to fifteen years in prison followed by fifteen years of probation as a sexual offender and a sexual predator. The trial court conducted a thorough plea colloquy with Mr. Sallee.
Mr. Sallee asserts that the trial court failed to conduct a proper competency hearing, thereby depriving him of due process. Cf. Dougherty v. State, 149 So.3d 672, 677 (Fla. 2014) . He insists that as part of the hearing, the trial court was required to receive witness testimony; and, based upon such testimony, make an independent determination that he was competent to proceed. He asks us to vacate his convictions, and remand for a proper competency hearing.
We note that "[a] judicial determination of incompetence remains valid until there is a subsequent judicial determination that the petitioner is competent to proceed." Metzgar v. State, 741 So.2d 1181, 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (quoting Downing v. State, 617 So.2d 864, 866 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) ); see also Dessaure v. State, 55 So.3d 478, 482–83 (Fla. 2010) (). But the trial court never found Mr. Sallee incompetent. In the absence of a judicial determination to the contrary, Mr. Sallee is, was, and remains presumptively competent. Cf. Child v. Wainwright, 148 So.2d 526, 527 (Fla. 1963) (); DeFriest v. State, 448 So.2d 1157, 1157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) ;1 King v. State, 387 So.2d 463, 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) ( ).
Mr. Sallee claims that the hearing was inadequate to protect his due process rights not to be tried or convicted while incompetent. See Dougherty, 149 So.3d at 679 (). He relies on Reynolds v. State, 177 So.3d 296, 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), in which the court reversed a revocation order and resulting sentence "because the trial court failed to hold a competency hearing prior to accepting Appellant's plea."
Reynolds is inapposite. Mr. Reynolds received no competency hearing. Id. at 298 () . In contrast, Mr. Sallee had a hearing. See Cochran v. State, 925 So.2d 370, 373 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) ().
There appears to be no dispute that "where the parties and the judge agree, the trial [c]ourt may decide the issue of competency on the basis of the written reports alone." Fowler v. State, 255 So.2d 513, 515 (Fla. 1971) ; accord Roman v. State, 163 So.3d 749, 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ().
The record reflects that defense counsel explained the contents of the experts' reports, noting that although the reports concluded that Mr. Sallee "is competent ... there [are] some things where he's viewed as marginal or that you know there's questions or concerns about it." Counsel advised the trial court that "what we're going to need to do is just try and do the best that we can and if there's something that causes concern where we need to reexamine the question of competency then do that at that time." Seemingly, defense counsel left it to the trial court to assess Mr. Sallee's competency based upon the reports. See Dougherty, 149 So.3d at 679 (); see also Rumph v. State, 217 So.3d 1092, 1095 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (). At the very least, defense counsel's explanation of the experts' reports, without requesting witness testimony, indicates the parties' agreement that the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Losada v. State
...nunc pro tunc competency hearing or order apply to the instant case. We find these cases, however, distinguishable. In Sallee v. State, 244 So.3d 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018), the Second District Court of Appeal remanded for a nunc pro tunc order where "the record reflect[ed] that defense counse......
-
Drennan v. State
...court must enter a written order if it finds the defendant is competent to proceed. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.212(b) ; Sallee v. State , 244 So. 3d 1143, 1146 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). If the trial court does not enter a written order on the defendant’s competency, the appellate court must remand th......
-
Johnson v. State
...1988) ).The record reflects that the trial court observed and spoke with Mr. Johnson at the competency hearing. See Sallee v. State, 244 So.3d 1143, 1146 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (observing that the defendant "was present at the competency hearing; the trial court was able to observe his demeanor......
- Pinkston v. State