PEDRO LEAL

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed September 16, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D26-1508 Lower Tribunal No. F20-10415

Pedro Leal, Petitioner,

vs.

State of Florida, Respondent.

A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Cristina Miranda, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Nicholas Lynch, Assistant Public Defender, for petitioner.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Joseph C. Burns, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Before SCALES, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and BOKOR, JJ.

FERNANDEZ, J.

Pedro Leal seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus in connection with his commitment to the Department of Children and Families for placement in a secure facility and treatment to restore competency or until such time as he no longer meets the criteria for commitment. We treat the petition as a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. See Dep't of Child. & Fams. v. Garcia, 245 So. 3d 919, 920-21 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).

With respect to Mr. Leal, both the State and defense agreed that he is not competent to proceed to trial. Both recognized the fact that he suffered a stroke in October of 2024. The disagreement between the parties centered on whether Mr. Leal was restorable to competency. Three psychologists testified at the evidentiary hearing conducted on June 15, 2026. Manuel Alvarez, Ph.D., testified that Mr. Leal suffers from a Neurocognitive Disorder, and he further testified that “in all psychological probability, he is not likely to improve” from his present condition and status as incompetent to proceed. Maria Galmarini, LMHC, PSY.D., testified "that [she] did not feel that there was a substantial probability that his competency could be restored within the foreseeable future." A third psychologist, Dr. Lina Haji, also testified. No report from Dr. Haji appears in the appendix supporting the petition or elsewhere in the record of this appeal. Dr. Haji testified that she did not evaluate Mr. Leal but instead reviewed the extensive records of his prior

evaluations, commitments and two prior restorations to competency. Dr. Haji opined that there was insufficient data upon which Drs. Alvarez and Galmarini could render an opinion that Mr. Leal was not restorable to competency but failed to opine that he is indeed restorable, instead testifying that "[b]ased on the information that I have, I think it's too early to say he's non-restorable."

In order to commit an incompetent criminal defendant for treatment, the trial court must comply with the requirements of section 916.13(1)(c), Florida Statue (2025), which requires clear and convincing evidence that "[t]here is a substantial probability that the mental illness causing the defendant's incompetence will respond to treatment and the defendant will regain competency to proceed in the reasonably foreseeable future." § 916.13(1)(c), Fla. Stat (2025). Given the testimony of the three psychologists, and particularly the absence of testimony rising to the level of clear and convincing evidence establishing a reasonable likelihood that Leal could be restored to competency in the reasonably foreseeable future, the trial court was not authorized to commit Leal for further restoration treatment. See Dep't of Child. & Fams. v. Musa, 321 So. 3d 908, 910-11 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021).

We grant the petition for a Writ of Certiorari and quash the commitment order.

Writ granted and order quashed.