WILLIE DAVIS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
When a trial court has reasonable grounds to believe a defendant might not be competent to proceed and appoints an expert to evaluate competence, the court commits fundamental error by failing to make an independent determination of competence.
[1] When a trial court has reasonable grounds to believe a defendant might not be competent to proceed, the court commits fundamental error by failing to make an independent…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWillie Davis was convicted of grand theft auto in Duval County Circuit Court. The trial court appointed an expert to evaluate Davis's competence to pr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Nunc Pro Tunc Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 5D2024-0997 LT Case No. 2023-CF-005665-A _____________________________
WILLIE DAVIS,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee. _____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
R. Anthony Salem, Judge.
Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and George D.E. Burden, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Christina Piotrowski, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
August 28, 2025
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal from his conviction and sentence for grand theft auto, Appellant claims that the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to make an independent determination of Appellant’s competence after appointing an expert to evaluate Appellant’s competence to proceed. Because the record reflects
2 that the trial court had reasonable grounds to believe that Appellant might not be competent to proceed, the court fundamentally erred when it failed to make an independent determination regarding Appellant’s competence. See Carnley v. State, 403 So. 3d 1094, 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a nunc pro tunc determination of Appellant’s competence at the time of trial or for a new trial, if such determination cannot be made by the court. Id.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
JAY, C.J., and LAMBERT and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________