Before a criminal case can go to trial, the law requires that the person facing charges be able to understand what is happening and help in their own defense. This is called competency to proceed. When there are real questions about whether someone meets that standard, the court is supposed to answer them before the trial begins.
Sometimes two experts disagree. One may find a defendant is not competent, while another finds the opposite. In that situation, a judge cannot simply move forward and let a trial happen without formally resolving the disagreement on the record.
That is what was at issue in Clark v. State, a decision from Florida’s First District Court of Appeal. The court explained what must happen when the record contains competing expert reports about a defendant’s competency but no formal competency determination was made before trial.
Key Takeaway
Once there are reasonable grounds to question a defendant’s competency, a Florida trial court must hold a competency hearing and enter a competency determination before proceeding to trial.
What happened in this case?
James Clark III was convicted of two counts of robbery with a firearm. Before trial, his defense lawyer submitted a report from one doctor who concluded that Clark was not competent to proceed.
The trial court set a competency hearing. At that hearing, both sides asked for a second evaluation, and the court appointed a second doctor, who later concluded that Clark was competent. The record did not show that the court ever held a hearing after the second report or formally decided the competency question.
What was the legal problem?
The case went to trial without the court resolving the conflict between the two expert reports. Clark did not object at the time. But under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(b) and Rule 3.212(b), once reasonable grounds exist to question competency, the court must hold a hearing and enter a determination before moving forward.
On appeal, the State agreed that this was an error. The appellate court treated the missing competency determination as a problem that had to be corrected.
What did the court decide?
The court affirmed on all the other issues Clark raised but reversed on the competency issue. It sent the case back to the trial court to decide whether a competency determination can now be made looking back to the time of the trial.
- If the court can make that backward-looking determination and finds Clark was competent when tried, it enters a written order to that effect, and the convictions and sentences stay in place.
- If the court cannot make that determination, or finds Clark was not competent at trial, Clark is entitled to a new trial once he is competent to proceed.
Why does this matter to people facing charges?
Competency rules exist to make sure that a trial is fair and that the person on trial can actually participate in their defense. This decision shows that the requirement to resolve competency questions is not optional, and that the issue can be addressed on appeal even when no objection was made at trial.
The court relied on an earlier case with very similar facts, where competing expert reports existed but no competency hearing or written order appeared in the record before trial. In both situations, the remedy was to send the case back for a look-back competency determination if one can still be made.
What is the bottom line?
A conflict between experts about competency has to be resolved by the trial court before trial. When that step is skipped, the appellate court can require the trial court to revisit the question, and the outcome depends on whether a reliable determination about the defendant’s past competency is still possible.
Disclaimer: This post is for general information only, is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and does not predict or guarantee any result. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before deciding, ask for free written information about the lawyer’s qualifications and experience.