Court Opinion

ID: 9953501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 13:02:42.441748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:00.354635
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                      Case No. 5D23-0617
                  LT Case No.2017-CF-000430
                 _____________________________

JOHN BRENNAN BALL,

    Appellant,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County.
Lisa D. Herndon, Judge.

Lori Wurtzel, of Wurtzel Law, PLLC, Winter Park, for
Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D.
Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for
Appellee.

                        March 22, 2024

PER CURIAM.

      John Brennan Ball (“Appellant”) appeals the trial court’s
order finding him to be retroactively competent following a nunc
pro tunc competency hearing. This Court previously determined
that the trial court erred when it relied solely on counsel’s
stipulation in finding Appellant competent and failed to
independently evaluate the expert’s written report and make an
independent determination of competency as to three of his counts.
Ball v. State, 319 So. 3d 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021). We remanded for
the trial court to “conduct a nunc pro tunc competency evaluation,
if it can, to determine whether Appellant was competent to proceed
at the time of his trial and to enter an appropriate order regarding
his competence.” Id.

       On remand, the trial court held a nunc pro tunc competency
hearing, following which it found Appellant to be retroactively
competent. Both before and during the hearing, Appellant
repeatedly requested to be appointed counsel to represent him at
the hearing. The trial court denied Appellant’s request for counsel.
Appellant contends that the court erred when it declined his
request for appointed counsel. The State concedes error in that a
nunc pro tunc competency hearing is a crucial stage of the
proceedings at which Appellant was entitled to be represented by
counsel. We agree. See generally Dickerson v. State, 228 So. 3d 658,
659–60 (Fla. 5th 2017) (noting that defendants are entitled to
counsel at each crucial stage of the proceedings, and defining
“crucial stage” as any stage that may significantly affect the
outcome of the proceedings); see also United States v. Ross, 703
F.3d 856, 874 (6th Cir. 2012) (“Neither the Supreme Court nor the
Sixth Circuit have considered whether a competency hearing is a
‘critical stage.’ ‘However, every federal court of appeals to take up
the question has answered it affirmatively.’” (internal citations
omitted)).

    We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct
a nunc pro tunc competency hearing at which Appellant is
represented by counsel. We do not address the other issues raised
on appeal.

    REVERSE and REMANDED with instructions.

JAY, EISNAUGLE, and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur.

                                 2
          _____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
           _____________________________

                       3