JUSTIN CAPRISE ALLEN v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed January 5, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________

No. 3D19-2369 Lower Tribunal No. F13-20045 ________________

Justin C. Allen, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and John Eddy Morrison, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, SCALES, and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a conviction and sentence following a probation violation, the issue is whether the trial court erred by not ordering an additional competency hearing sua sponte. “A trial court’s failure to hold a competency hearing is subject to the abuse of discretion standard.” Wall v. State, 326 So. 3d 1065, 1070 (Fla. 2021).

Prior competency issues raised by defense counsel resulted in findings of incompetency until, after the passage of time, the Appellant’s competency was diagnosed as being restored by three medical professionals. At the consequent probation violation hearing, the Appellant made comments which he now contends should have alerted the trial court to the need for further competency evaluations. At the time, however, these statements did not cause the trial court or defense counsel to question the Appellant’s competency. The record reflects that the Appellant at the revocation hearing never stated that he did not understand the proceeding. To the contrary, he acknowledged that a plea had been offered, briefly spoke well about defense counsel, and accepted his sentence.

This case ultimately turns on the trial court’s evaluation of the Appellant’s conduct and statements during the evidentiary hearing. These matters take meaning from their context, which the trial court is best situated to judge. In these circumstances, we cannot find that the trial court abused *3 its discretion. Id.; see also Dessaure v. State, 55 So. 3d 478, 482–83 (Fla. 2010).

Affirmed.