JONES v. STATE (2018)

Affirmed.

Six months prior to trial, Jamie Pearl Jones—previously deemed incompetent to stand trial—was adjudged competent to do so based on his lawyer's stipulation and a new report that Jones had regained competency. The pre-trial judge orally announced his ruling of competency, despite never seeing or seeking a copy of the new report (essentially relying on defense counsel's stipulation and assertion that the report was “confidential”). A standard form order followed. Under these circumstances, the pre-trial judge abdicated his responsibility to make an independent determination that a once-incompetent defendant has become competent to go to trial. Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672, 678 (Fla. 2014) (“Accepting a stipulation improperly absolves the trial court from making an independent determination regarding a defendant's competency to stand trial.”); Belizaire v. State, 188 So. 3d 933, 935 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (finding the trial court's acceptance of defense counsel's “stipulation that because both experts found [defendant] competent, they could proceed with the trial” to be insufficient). A remand and nunc pro tunc competency evaluation is required, absent which a new trial is required. See Brooks v. State, 180 So. 3d 1094, 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“[A] new trial is required only if the trial court is unable to conduct a nunc pro tunc evaluation of the defendant's competency at the time of the original trial.”).

Per Curiam.

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Lewis, J., concur; Makar, J., dissents with opinion.