OTIS BLAXTON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-318

_____________________________/

Opinion filed March 17, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County.

Robert Groeb, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and A. Victoria Wiggins, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), this 

Court’s review of the record revealed that Appellant’s competency was questioned, 

but the record below did not include a competency evaluation or reflect that the 

trial court conducted a hearing or issued an order on Appellant’s competency. We 
2

therefore issued an order pursuant to State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1987), 

requiring Appellant’s counsel to address these issues. After providing supplements 

to the record, Appellant’s counsel filed an amended brief advising that, although 

Appellant’s trial counsel stated on the record at a pre-trial hearing that he knew the 

evaluating expert had concluded that Appellant was competent to stand trial and 

“there’s no legal issue in that area to prevent us from going forward,” there is no 

evidence in the record that the trial court reviewed the competency evaluation 

report or entered an order adjudicating Appellant competent to proceed. The State 

then filed with this Court supplemental records including a copy of the competency 

evaluation report, which did conclude that Appellant was competent to proceed to 

trial. However, it appears the report itself has not yet been filed with the clerk of 

the lower tribunal, and the record does not reflect that the requirements of judicial 

review and adjudication of competency were met below.

As we held recently in Brooks v. State, 180 So. 3d 1094, 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2015), these circumstances require that we reverse and remand for adjudication of 

whether Appellant was competent at the time he was tried:

Because there is no indication that the trial court conducted a 

competency hearing or ruled on Brooks’ competency, we are 

compelled to reverse the judgments and sentences. On remand, the 

court shall hold a hearing to determine Brooks’s competency to stand 

trial. If there is evidence that existed previously which supports a 

finding that Brooks was competent at the time of trial, the court may 

make a determination of competency, nunc pro tunc, with no change 

in the judgment. . . . However, if the court cannot make a retroactive 
3

determination, it must properly adjudicate Brooks’s present 

competency and, if Brooks is competent to proceed, conduct a new 

trial. 

Here, unlike in Brooks, it is undisputed that a competency evaluation was 

completed. Therefore the trial court may be able to find, nunc pro tunc, that 

Appellant was competent at the time of his previous trial. This does, however, 

require a hearing and entry of an order adjudicating Appellant competent nunc pro 

tunc to the date of his trial. Id.; see also Cotton v. State, 177 So. 3d 666, 668 (Fla. 

1st DCA 2015) (requiring competency hearing on remand).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

WOLF, THOMAS, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.