Awolowo v. State
On rehearing, the First DCA withdrew its prior opinion and held that a trial court's decision to order a rule 3.210 competency evaluation does not, by itself, create a constitutional entitlement to a subsequent competency hearing and written determination unless the record actually contained reasonable grounds to question the defendant's competency in the first place. Because nothing in defense counsel's boilerplate motion, the court's form order, or the trial record showed reasonable grounds to doubt Awolowo's competency (and the appointed expert found him competent), the trial court's failure to hold a hearing or enter a written competency order was not fundamental error. The court expressly receded from its own line of cases (Zern, Perez, Pearce, Sheheane, Walker, English) that had treated such a failure as automatic fundamental error, and certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question left open in State v. Dortch.
Key facts
- Defendant Awolowo was evaluated for competency pursuant to a rule 3.210(b) motion, and the appointed expert found him competent.
- The trial court ordered the competency evaluation but did not hold a competency hearing or enter a written competency determination.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion is a major development for competency litigation in Florida, expressly receding from a well-established line of First DCA cases (Zern and its progeny) that had treated any failure to hold a rule 3.210… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.