STANLEY RAY COOKSTON
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.
A trial court must conduct an independent competency determination and enter a written order adjudicating competency, and cannot simply accept a defendant's stipulation to competency even when expert reports support it.
[1] When a trial court appoints an expert to determine a defendant's competency to proceed, the court must thereafter conduct an independent determination of competency and e…
[2] A defendant cannot stipulate to the ultimate issue of competency to proceed, and a trial court may not accept such a stipulation in lieu of making its own competency dete…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“However, nothing in our precedent or the State's argument persuades us that a defendant can stipulate to the ultimate issue of competency, even where the written reports reach the same conclusion.”
Court explaining that defense counsel's stipulation to competency cannot substitute for the trial court's independent determination.
Cookston was convicted of armed burglary after a jury trial. Prior to trial, the defense moved for a competency determination, the trial court appoint…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.210(B) cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
STANLEY RAY COOKSTON,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D19-2523
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed July 10, 2020
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Jessica J. Recksiedler, Judge.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Louis A. Rossi, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Nora Hutchinson Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Stanley Cookston was convicted, after a jury trial, of armed burglary of a dwelling. On appeal, he argues that the trial court committed fundamental error when it failed to hold a competency hearing and enter a competency order. We agree.
Prior to trial, defense counsel moved for a competency determination pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(b). The trial court granted the motion and
2 appointed an expert to examine Cookston to determine if he was competent to proceed. Defense counsel subsequently “stipulated” that his client was competent to proceed. However, the record does not indicate that any competency hearing was held, nor does the record contain an order adjudicating competency.
If a trial court appoints an expert to determine a defendant’s competency to proceed, it must thereafter make an independent determination of the defendant’s competency. Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672, 679 (Fla. 2014). Failure to do so constitutes fundamental error. Alexander v. State, 254 So. 3d 1157, 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). Furthermore, a trial court may not simply accept defense counsel’s stipulation that his client is competent to proceed. Dougherty, 149 So. 3d at 678 (“However, nothing in our precedent or the State’s argument persuades us that a defendant can stipulate to the ultimate issue of competency, even where the written reports reach the same conclusion.”).
We reverse and remand for the trial court to determine whether it can conduct a hearing to determine Cookston’s competency at the time of trial. See Parcilla v. State, 257 So. 3d 156, 157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). If it is possible to hold such hearing, and the court determines that Cookston was competent, then it shall enter a nunc pro tunc written order adjudicating him competent. Id. If the court determines that Cookston was incompetent, or if the court is unable to conduct a hearing, it shall vacate Cookston’s judgment and sentence and conduct further proceedings. Id.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
EVANDER, C.J., LAMBERT and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014)
- Raphael Parcilla v. State, 257 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Tayon L. Alexander v. State, 254 So. 3d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)