WILLIAM TONY MCCROAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA 

(N.F.E.T.C.),

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1D11-3709

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 16, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Jackson County.

William L. Wright, Judge.

Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee; Bernard F. 

Daley, Jr. of The Daley Law Office, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Charles R. McCoy, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

OPINION ON MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE

PER CURIAM. 

McCroan filed a motion asking this court to enter an opinion enforcing its 

mandate. For the reasons discussed below, we grant the motion. 

While McCroan was awaiting trial on criminal charges, the trial court found 

McCroan incompetent to proceed. The court then entered an order finding him not 
guilty by reason of insanity. The court also found McCroan was a danger to 

himself or others and ordered that he be civilly committed. McCroan subsequently 

filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court, arguing the court lacked 

the authority to adjudicate him not guilty by reason of insanity because that was a 

jury question, and because the court had found him incompetent to proceed. The 

court denied the motion. 

On appeal, the State correctly conceded error. This court issued an opinion

on April 4, 2013, reversing the trial court’s denial of McCroan’s petition for writ of 

habeas corpus and remanding for the court to quash the order finding McCroan not 

guilty by reason of insanity. McCroan v. State, 110 So. 3d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2013). The opinion cited Thompson v. Crawford, in which the Third District held 

that because a defendant may not be proceeded against while incompetent to stand 

trial, a trial court’s order finding an incompetent defendant not guilty by reason of 

insanity is void. 479 So. 2d 169, 185-86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The Thompson court 

also held the question of whether a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity is a 

question of fact for the jury; thus, the trial court lacks the authority to make this 

finding unless the defendant has waived the right to a jury trial. Id. at 180.

On remand, the trial court did not quash the order finding McCroan not 

guilty by reason of insanity, as required by this court’s opinion. To the contrary, 

the court entered a second order again finding McCroan not guilty by reason of 

2
insanity. The court also found McCroan continued to be a danger to himself or 

others and ordered that he continue to be civilly committed. The court has not, to 

date, found that McCroan has regained his competency to stand trial. 

In response to McCroan’s motion to enforce mandate, the State correctly 

concedes error. Accordingly, we grant the motion to enforce mandate and again 

instruct the trial court to quash the order finding McCroan not guilty by reason of 

insanity. We write to make it explicitly clear that the court is without authority to 

proceed against McCroan until the court finds that his competency has been 

restored. Further, the court is without authority to find McCroan not guilty by 

reason of insanity because McCroan has not waived his right to a jury trial. 

Thompson, 479 So. 2d at 185-86.

Motion to enforce mandate GRANTED; REMANDED with instructions. 

LEWIS, C.J., WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.

3