LEETO ALLEN v. STATE OF FLORIDA (2017)

Leeto L. Allen appeals from the final order of the lower court denying his motions for postconviction relief. Those motions and Allen's petition for writ of habeas corpus—which the lower court converted to a motion for postconviction relief—all raised the same arguments: Allen's convictions and sentences should be vacated because the presiding trial court judge did not conduct an evidentiary hearing on his competency following the issuance of an October 5, 2010, competency evaluation finding him competent to proceed to trial, and did not enter an order expressly finding him competent to proceed. Important to our assessment of Allen's contentions, Allen did not file a direct appeal.

The lower court was correct in denying Allen relief. “The competency issue is procedurally barred because it should have been raised on direct appeal.” Patton v. State, 784 So. 2d 380, 393 (Fla. 2000) (citing Johnston v. Dugger, 583 So. 2d 657, 659 (Fla. 1991)); accord Thompson v. State, 88 So. 3d 312, 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (a defendant's claim that the trial court “erred in failing to follow procedures to ensure competency can and must be raised on direct appeal only”) (emphasis in original) (citing Nelson v. State, 43 So. 3d 20, 33 (Fla. 2002)), rev. denied, 107 So. 3d 407 (Fla. 2012). Likewise, a defendant's substantive claim that he or she has a due process right not to be proceeded against while incompetent can be raised on direct appeal and is procedurally barred from being raised in a postconviction motion. Carroll v. State, 815 So. 2d 601, 609-10 (Fla. 2002); Patton, 784 So. 2d at 393.

Allen did not raise his claim on direct appeal. Therefore, Allen is procedurally barred from raising it in a postconviction motion.

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM.

ROBERTS, C.J., JAY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.