Kevin Blessit v. State of Florida

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 5D2024-3488
LT Case No. 2021-CF-003122-A
_____________________________
KEVIN BLESSIT,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County.
Robert William Hodges, Judge.
Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Evan Altes, Assistant
Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Stephen R.
Putnam Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for
Appellee.
January 2, 2026
PER CURIAM.
Kevin Blessit appeals his judgment and sentence, contending
that after he was found incompetent to proceed with his trial, he
was subsequently tried and convicted by a jury without the trial
court first holding a hearing to determine whether his competence

2
had been restored. Blessit was adjudicated incompetent by the
trial court in February 2022, but the trial court held no subsequent
hearing to determine Blessit’s competency before Blessit’s case
proceeded to trial in November 2024, which resulted in his
convictions. Blessit argues that the trial court fundamentally
erred in proceeding to trial without finding Blessit’s competency
had been restored, contending that his due process rights were
violated as he was presumed incompetent to stand trial. The State
properly concedes fundamental error.
“After a defendant has been adjudicated incompetent, a
hearing is necessary to overcome the presumption of incompetency
and find the defendant competent.” Rumph v. State, 217 So. 3d
1092, 1095 (Fla. 2017). Where a trial court fails to observe the
procedures outlined in Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure
3.210−3.212—“procedures determined to be adequate to protect a
defendant’s right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to
stand trial”—the supreme court determined that “the remedy for
such a violation, a new trial or a nunc pro tunc hearing to
determine competency, depends on the circumstances of each
case.” Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672, 679 (Fla. 2014).
Because the trial court erred in not making an independent
determination that Blessit was competent to proceed to trial, we
reverse and remand with instructions to the trial court to make a
nunc pro tunc determination of competence at the time of trial, or,
if a nunc pro tunc determination is not possible, to grant a new
trial, ensuring that Blessit is competent to proceed. See id.; see also
Johnson v. State, 264 So. 3d 259, 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
MAKAR, EDWARDS, and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________