Fleming v. State
Fleming sought certiorari review of a trial court order finding him competent to proceed to trial, arguing the court improperly relied on an older evaluation over more recent expert testimony. The Fifth DCA dismissed the petition, holding that because Fleming challenged only the substantive correctness of the competency determination (not the procedure used), plenary appeal was an adequate remedy and he could not establish the irreparable harm required for certiorari jurisdiction.
Key facts
- Fleming sought certiorari review of a trial court order finding him competent to proceed to trial, arguing the court improperly relied on an older evaluation over more recent expert testimony.
- The trial court conducted a competency hearing and evaluation but weighed the evidence in a manner Fleming challenged, finding him competent to stand trial.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion sharpens the line between competency rulings reviewable by certiorari versus plenary appeal, distinguishing the First District's Addison decision (procedural failure to evaluate) from cases challenging only… — 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.