GRESHAM v. STATE (2019)

Dillon James Gresham appeals his judgment and sentence for first-degree murder and grand theft. Gresham contends that the trial court erred by not holding a hearing or entering an order to determine his competency after his public defender filed a suggestion of mental incompetency to stand trial.¹ The State concedes error. We agree and remand for the trial court to conduct a retroactive competency evaluation based upon the existence of evaluations performed contemporaneous to trial. “If the trial court finds that [the defendant] was incompetent or that a retrospective determination is not possible in this case, it must hold a new trial, as long as [the defendant] is and remains competent on remand.” Mann v. State, 254 So. 3d 1131, 1132 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (quoting Zern v. State, 191 So. 3d 962, 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)).

AFFIRMED in Part; REVERSED in Part; and REMANDED with Instructions.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Gresham also challenges the adequacy of the hearing held pursuant to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). We affirm without discussion.

PER CURIAM.

WALLIS, EISNAUGLE and HARRIS, JJ., concur.