Opinion ID: 4543946
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: New Competency Evaluation

Text: Santiago-Gonzalez also argues that the trial court erred in failing to order a new competency evaluation before the penalty phase began. He asserts that incidents that occurred in the months leading up to the penalty phase provided - 29 - reasonable grounds for the trial court to question his competency. However, the State argues that the trial court was not obligated to reevaluate competency. We agree that the trial court was not required to evaluate Santiago-Gonzalez’s competency anew. Santiago-Gonzalez argues that signs of his incompetency began as soon as August 16, 2016, the day after the guilty plea. On that day, he wrote a letter to the trial court accusing the mental health assistant warden of taking his mail and other personal property. Additionally, he points to conduct in October 2016, when he wrote another letter to the trial court, this time stating that he was not committing acts of self-harm to kill himself but rather to obtain a discharge from the mental health treatment facility where he resided. The letter read: “I’ve been hurting myself because I have been trying to get discharge [sic] from this place (mental health) and the mental health’s doctors been playing games, so, I do that to make them spend a lot of money on me in hospitals. (Like a payback.).” He continued: I am not crazy, I do not belong here! I am in my five senses and I really want to get over with this case!! To be 100% straight/honest with you. . . I won’t change my ways! Because I will keep doing what I do, and killing people if I have to! Remember, I already have a bunch of life sentences and 300 years to do in prison! I don’t really have nothing to lose!! [A]nd I don’t care who I hurt or kill anymore. He further stated: “I have zero remorce [sic] for my crime and crimes. You know, the State have not only one aggravator, but, a bunch of aggravators against me, to - 30 - make me elegible [sic] for a death sentence!! That’s the only way I will stop stabbing people.” On October 21, 2016, the trial court entered a commitment order for continuing treatment because Santiago-Gonzalez refused voluntary treatment and “poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to himself or others.” An essential treatment order request completed in January 2017 found him “clinically incompetent to consent to treatment.” The request noted a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder and observed the following regarding recent incidents: Mr. Santiago-Gonzalez continues to inflict serious harm on his body. Pt was admitted to the self-harm observation unit on 10/1, 10/15, and 11/30. On 10/16, pt was transported to Jacksonville Memorial for surgical evaluation to treat self-injury to the abdomen. On another occasion, 11/8, pt was transported to Dr. Bennett for surgical care following a 2 by 2” self-inflicted wound to his mid-abdomen. Finally on 12/20, pt was transported to Jacksonville Memorial Hospital following insertion of a pen into his abdomen. Pt recurrent self-injury poses a risk of permanent disability or death. The following summer, in July 2017, Santiago-Gonzalez had been recently ordered into a mental health treatment facility for six months, during which time he was to receive “court ordered medications to psychiatrically stabilize.” At a July 17, 2017, motion hearing, defense counsel advised the court that SantiagoGonzalez was taking several psychotropic medications. - 31 - Santiago-Gonzalez also states that he had an “outburst” during that hearing. While discussing penalty phase scheduling, the following exchange with the trial court occurred: THE COURT: Okay. So knowing that, what I’m going to do is I’m going to set this for a firm trial date starting February the 5th. Okay? THE DEFENDANT: Fuck. THE COURT: We are going to block off three weeks. THE DEFENDANT: I’m not waiting until February, man. I don’t want no jury. Fuck all this. Y’all lied to me, man. Y’all lying to me. THE COURT: So, Mr. Santiago THE DEFENDANT: They lied to me, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Santiago – THE DEFENDANT: They told me it was in August, something like that. I want to get done with this thing. THE COURT: Mr. Santiago – THE DEFENDANT: I don’t want to wait until February, Your Honor. THE COURT: Let me talk to you a moment. Okay? THE DEFENDANT: I bet they’re going to shoot me today, if you need it, man. THE COURT: Your attorneys have argued that you should be able to go to trial in August. The State is the one that has asked for a continuance. I’m the one who has decided to make the February term, not your attorneys. - 32 - THE DEFENDANT: They told me if I pick the jury, I’m still going in August. Now it’s not what it was. THE COURT: So THE DEFENDANT: See? I waive my penalty. I don’t want no jury now, period. I don’t want to talk to them, period. THE COURT: So, Mr. – THE DEFENDANT: I ain’t crazy. I waive my penalty phase, everything, everything here. THE COURT: So, Mr. – THE DEFENDANT: I want to waive everything right here. I’m not going to change my mind no more. THE COURT: So, Mr. Santiago, let me talk to you a moment. Ultimately, you can decide to waive the jury if you want to. Either way, the prosecutor says they’re not going to be ready before February to argue that you should get the death penalty. I’m the one – your attorneys can’t control me. I’m like an umpire in a baseball game, okay? They can’t control what I decide. I’ve decided that I’m going to give the State until February to make their strongest argument that you can get the death penalty and give your attorneys the strongest argument that they can make that you shouldn’t get it. Come February 5th I’m going to have a jury here, okay? You can come in February 5th and start selecting that jury and go forward with the jury trial. You can come in February 5th and say, “Judge, I don’t want the jury anymore; I just want you, and I waive it.” Either way, my intention would be to start the process. Okay? So I’m going to have both ready to go. Either you just have a judge, or you have a jury decide. It will be up to you and your attorneys to discuss. Okay, sir? All right. So February 5th will be the trial. Block out at least three weeks on your calendar. And I would keep your calendar light for the fourth week in case we go into the fourth week. Okay? - 33 - That being said, we need to get back at least for some case management and some more time to argue additional motions. Santiago-Gonzalez continued to be treated for mental illness and self-harm. On December 13, 2017, a mental health treatment order noted a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, mixed severe with psychotic features, and indicated: “Continues to engage in self-injurious behaviors required multiple emergency air-flight to trauma center, most recently as of 12/12/17.” There was no motion for a new competency evaluation, and the penalty phase began on February 5, 2018. At the beginning of the penalty phase, the trial court engaged in another detailed colloquy with Santiago-Gonzalez to ensure a valid waiver of a penalty phase jury. Ensuring a defendant’s competency is a continuing obligation of the court. See Nowitzke v. State, 572 So. 2d 1346, 1349 (Fla. 1990). “Once a defendant is declared competent, the trial court must still be receptive to revisiting the issue if circumstances change. However, only if bona fide doubt is raised as to a defendant’s mental capacity is the court required to conduct another competency proceeding.” Hunter v. State, 660 So. 2d 244, 248 (Fla. 1995) (citing Pericola v. State, 499 So. 2d 864, 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)). Moreover, “[a] presumption of competence attaches from a previous determination of competency to stand trial.” Id. (citing Durocher v. Singletary, 623 So. 2d 482, 484 (Fla. 1993)). - 34 - Santiago-Gonzalez relies on his ongoing history of mental illness and selfinjurious behavior as a basis for concluding that he was incompetent to plead guilty and to proceed to the penalty phase. The State articulates several reasons why the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order a new competency evaluation before the penalty phase: (1) Appellant was competent to proceed and enter a guilty plea, despite his history of mental illness; (2) his defense team never challenged or raised a concern about his competency; (3) Appellant never acted unusually or inappropriately in the courtroom; (4) the trial court had many opportunities to observe his demeanor and behavior; (5) Appellant always responded intelligently and appropriately to the trial court and his counsel; (6) throughout the proceedings, Appellant exhibited rational thought; (7) no materially new information was presented to or observed by the trial court; and (8) the trial court had no reasonable basis or bona fide doubt as to Appellant’s competency. The trial court did not err in proceeding to the penalty phase without ordering a new competency evaluation.