IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA 200 APR 26 PM l 46 CLERK, SUPREME COURT JOHN FRAISER, Petitioner, Vs. Case No:. DCA Case no.: 1D11-6675 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent, ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PETITIONER'S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF John Fraiser, pro se DC# 955448 PROVIDED TO RECEPTION MEDICAL ENTE AIUNG Reception & Medical Center, Main Unit P.O. Box 628 INMATE INITIALS: Y Lake Butler, Florida 32054-0628 1 TABLEOFCONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..........................................................................................ii TABLE OF CITATIONS .........................................................................................iii STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS.......................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .......................................................................5 ARGUMENT............................................................................................................5 POINT ONE: DOES A TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO CONDUCT A COMPETENCY HEARING AFTER ISSUING AN ORDER TO DETERMINE COMPETENCY, DEMONSTRATE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND REVERSIBLEERROR.........................................................................................5 StandardofReview.............................................................................................5 ArgumentontheMerits......................................................................................5 USIONCONCL .......................................................................................................11 TCEERTIFICA - . - - ...................... .............................. ............... ....... ... COCERTIFICATE OF MPLIANCE .............. .......... ................. ..... .......... .... a ..... a . 11 TABLE OF CITATIONS Florida Cases Burns v. State, 63 So.3d 887 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)................................................... 1 Caraballo v. State, 39 So.3d 1234 (Fla.2010).......................................................... 1 Hardy v. State, 716 So.2d 761 (Fla.1998)................................................................. 5 Martinez v. State, 712 So.2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)............................................. 1 McCray v. State, 71 So.3d 848 (Fla.2011)................................................................ 5 Monte v. State, 51 So.3d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)...d. ....... ...........:..... .. .......... 1 Patton v. State, 784 So.2d 380 (Fla.2000)................................................................ 9 Rosier v. State, 38 So.3d 856 (Fla. 14 DCA 2010)................................................... 1 Thompson v. State, 88 So.3d 312 (Fla.2012)...................................................... 8, 11 Federal Cases Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975)........... 8, 11 Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 112 S.Ct. 2572, 120 L.Ed.2d 353 (1992). 8, 11 Florida Rules Rule 3.210(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure............................................ 5, 7 Rule 3.210, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure................................................... 12 Rule 3.211(a)(2)(A), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure...................................... 6 Rule 3.211(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure ............................................ 5, 6 Rule 3.211, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure............................................... 8, 12 111 Rule 3.212, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure................................................... 12 Rule 9.210(a)2, Florida Rules ofAppellate Procedure........................................... 13 Florida Statutes Section 775.084, Florida Statutes ............................................................................. 2 Section 775.087, Florida Statutes ............................................................................. 2 Section 916.12(1), Florida Statutes....................................................................... 5, 6 Section 916.12, Florida Statutes ......................................................................... 8, 12 1V STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS Petitioner, John Fraiser, pro se, is a prisoner within the Florida Department of Corrections. On appeal, Mr. Fraiser asserted the trial court committed reversible error in failing to conduct a competency hearing after issuing an order directing a court appointed expert to evaluate his competency to proceed. After the order, and the evaluation, the court did not conduct a competency hearing and did conduct further adversarial proceedings including imposing judgment and sentence. Mr. Fraiser asserts that the decision denying relief by the Florida Fit·st District Court of Appeal is in express conflict with prior published decisions of this Court1, and the Florida District Courts of Appeal2. Mr. Fraiser respectfully asserts he is therefore entitled to relief from this Court. On May 3, 2008, Mr. Fraiser was arrested in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida and charged by three (3) count felony information with aggravated assault i Caraballo v. State, 39 So.3d 1234, 1252 (Fla.2010) (If the court has reasonable ground to believe that defendant is not mentally competent to proceed, it shall immediately schedule a hearing to determine defendant's competency and may appoint experts to evaluate the defendant.) 2 Rosier v. State, 38 So.3d 856, 857 (Fla. 1" DCA 2010) (conviction reversed for competency hearing and new trial due to the trial court's failure to conduct a competency hearing); Martinez v. State, 712 So.2d 818, 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (In order for an expert's psychological evaluation to constitute evidence adequate to support a trial court's competency determination, it must include a discussion of each of the specific factors which rule 3.211(a) enumerates.); Monte v. State, 51 So.3d 1196, 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (Once a trial court has reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal defendant is not competent to proceed, it has no choice but to conduct a competency hearing.); and Burns, v. State, 63 So.3d 887 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (Conviction reversed and remanded for competency hearing and new trial for failure to conduct competency hearing) 1 on a law enforcement officer; felony possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; and aggravated assault. The Office of the. Public Defender was appointed to represent Mr. Fraiser in the instant cause. (R Vol. I, 1-12) On July 9, 2008, the State of Florida filed a notice of intent to classify Mr. Fraiser as a Prison Releasee Reoffender under Section 775.087, Florida Statutes, and as an Habitual Violent Felony Offender under Section 775.084, Florida Statutes. (R Vol. I, 24-25) On January 22, 2009, all parties agreed to a preliminary finål dispositiotr that Mr. Fraiser would enter a negotiated plea of guilty and in return, the Court would impose a three-year minimum mandatory term in prison. See Case Docket Summary, 5 of 16. No further action regarding this final disposition was taken. On May 20, 2010, the Honorable Lawrence P. Haddock issued a sua sponte order directing Mr. Fraiser to undergo a competency determination. The Court ordered Dr. William R. Meadows, to evaluate Mr. Fraiser's ability to proceed with the criminal proceedings. (R Vol. I, 65) Doctor Meadows' evaluation was to take place on May 24, 2010. (R Vol. I, 65) Additionally, the Court ordered that two copies of Dr. Meadows evaluation shall be delivered to the Court prior to Mr. Frasier's next court appearance, which was scheduled for June 17, 2010. (R Vol. I, 65) 2 On June 28, 2011, Mr. Fraiser appeared in court on matters relating to the State of Florida's intent to classify Mr. Fraiser as a Prison Releasee Reoffender and Habitual Violent Felony Offender. (R Vol. I, 89 - 90) During this adversarial hearing, Mr. Fraiser refused to stipulate to the factual basis of the out-of-state convictions relied on by the State for the requested sentencing enhancements3. Mr. Fraiser's objections challenged the viability of the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon allegations in count two of the information. On October 31, 20ll,2Mr. Fraiser appeared before the Court to select'jufy for trial proceedings. Mr. Fraiser participated in the jury selection and with the assistance of counsel and selected a jury panel. Jury trial was scheduled to commence November 1, 2011. On November 1, 2011, prior to the jury trial commencing, Mr. Fraiser entered a best interest, open plea to the Court to the charged offenses. (R Vol. I, 97-114) The Court accepted Mr. Fraiser's plea as voluntary and sentencing was scheduled for December 8, 2011. On December 8, 2011, the Court imposed sentence of twenty (20) years prison as a Habitual Violent Felony Offender. (R Vol. I, 115-124) On December 13, 2011, Mr. Fraiser's appointed counsel filed a notice of appeal seeking appellate review of the judgment and sentence. (R Vol. I, 138) 3 At the time of this hearing, Judge Haddock had not issued a final determination finding Mr. 3 On December 22, 2011, Mr. Fraiser, pro se, filed a motion to withdraw plea. (R Vol. I, 146) The Court failed to conduct a hearing, or issue an order in final disposition regarding the motion. On November 29, 2012, the First District Court of Appeal issued an order affirming, per curiam, Mr. Fraiser's appeal of the judgment and sentence. On December 9, 2012, Mr. Fraiser submitted a motion for rehearing asserting that the Court's determination regarding the competency proceedings was misplaced and in error. On of434 , 2013, the