Robert Castro v. State of Florida

D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEAL O F T HE STATE OF F LORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
ROBERT CASTRO,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 4D2025-0134
[February 11, 2026]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.
Lucie County; Michael C. Heisey, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2022CF001863 A.
Daniel Eisinger, Public Defender, and Siobhan H. Shea, Assistant
Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
James 	Uthmeier, 	Attorney 	General, 	Tallahassee, 	and 	Melynda 	L.
Melear, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
LEVINE , J.
After appellant was found competent to proceed, a trial judge ordered
a new competency evaluation of appellant. 	Two years later, in front of
another judge, appellant was found competent to stand trial based on the
initial examination. The sole issue raised by appellant is whether the trial
court erred in relying on the initial evaluation from 2022, when proceeding
to trial in 2024. 	The state concedes this is error, and we agree. 	As such,
we reverse and remand.
On 	November 	11, 	2022, 	a 	psychologist 	evaluated 	appellant 	and
determined he was competent to proceed. 	At a competency hearing held
on 	November 	16, 	2022, 	defense 	counsel 	raised 	concerns 	regarding
appellant’s presentation and ability to proceed. The trial court agreed that
appellant did not appear competent, observed that he had “definitely
decompensated,” and granted defense counsel’s request for an additional
competency 	evaluation. 	No 	written 	order 	adjudicating 	appellant
incompetent was entered at that time. 	The record reflects no subsequent
competency evaluations, reports, or hearings following the November 16,
2022, hearing.

2
Nearly two years later, on October 25, 2024, a different trial judge
entered a written order finding appellant competent to proceed to trial.
The 	order 	stated 	that 	the 	court’s 	determination 	was 	based 	on 	the
stipulation of counsel for the court to review and consider appellant’s
competency 	based 	upon 	the 	contents 	of 	the 	November 	11, 	2022,
evaluation. 	The record, however, contains no written or oral stipulation
waiving a competency hearing or agreeing to rely solely on the evaluation
from November 11, 2022.
Appellant 	proceeded 	to 	jury 	trial 	following 	the 	October 	25, 	2024,
competency order. Appellant was charged with first-degree murder with a
firearm in the death of his ex-girlfriend. 	Trial testimony indicated that
appellant had gone to his ex-girlfriend’s home to talk with her about
reconciliation but, while there, a disagreement occurred. 	Appellant’s ex-
girlfriend threw a butter knife at appellant after he pushed her, and then
she tried to go outside. 	Appellant followed his ex-girlfriend and saw her
fumble with something in the dark. 	Believing it was a firearm, appellant
shot his ex-girlfriend multiple times. 	Appellant called 911 and told the
operator he had killed his ex-girlfriend. 	Appellant left the residence and
went to a friend’s apartment where he recounted what happened, saying
he had messed up. 	After talking with his friend and family, appellant
turned himself in to the police later that day.
During trial, appellant testified in his own defense and responded to
questioning by the prosecutor and defense counsel. 	No expert testimony
regarding competency was presented, and no witnesses testified regarding
appellant’s mental condition or ability to consult with counsel at the time
of trial. The jury found appellant guilty as charged of first-degree murder,
and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements
governing competency determinations is reviewed de novo. 	Presley v.
State, 199 So. 3d 1014, 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); see also Pittman v.
State, 254 So. 3d 494, 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). 	A trial court’s ultimate
competency determination must be supported by competent, substantial
evidence. Huggins v. State, 161 So. 3d 335, 344 (Fla. 2014). A trial court’s
failure to conduct a required competency hearing constitutes fundamental
error. 	Pittman, 254 So. 3d at 496; Flaherty v. State, 266 So. 3d 1187,
1188-89 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
Competency 	must 	be 	assessed 	based 	on 	the 	defendant’s 	mental
condition at the time of the proceedings. 	Washington v. State, 162 So. 3d
284, 	289 	(Fla. 	4th 	DCA 	2015). 	A 	competency 	determination 	is 	not

3
supported 	by 	competent, 	substantial 	evidence 	when 	it 	relies 	on
evaluations that are not contemporaneous with trial. 	Id. at 289-90; see
also Bittle v. State, 245 So. 3d 792, 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
Here, although the November 11, 2022, evaluation initially concluded
appellant was competent, the trial court determined at the November 16,
2022, hearing that appellant did not appear competent and ordered an
additional evaluation. 	No additional evaluation or competency hearing
occurred or is part of this record.
Once a trial court orders an additional competency evaluation, that
order reflects reasonable grounds to question the defendant’s competency
and triggers the obligation to complete the competency process before trial
may proceed. 	Brown v. State, 250 So. 3d 764, 765 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018);
see also Flaherty, 266 So. 3d at 1188 (“[W]hen a trial court orders an
evaluation, 	it 	suggests 	there 	are 	reasonable 	grounds 	to 	believe 	the
defendant is incompetent.”).
When a trial court fails to conduct a proper competency hearing, the
usual remedy is reversal and remand for a new trial. Losada v. State, 260
So. 3d 1156, 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). 	However, in some cases, a nunc
pro tunc competency determination can be appropriate. 	Dougherty v.
State, 149 So. 3d 672, 679 (Fla. 2014) (“A new trial is not always necessary
where the issue of competency was inadequately determined prior to trial;
a retroactive determination of competency is possible.”). 	However, such a
determination is permissible only where the trial court can make findings
based on sufficient contemporaneous evidence without relying solely on a
cold record and without violating due process. Mason v. State, 489 So. 2d
734, 737 (Fla. 1986); Pollard v. State, 254 So. 3d 984, 986 (Fla. 4th DCA
2018).
Whether 	the 	circumstances 	permit 	a 	nunc 	pro 	tunc 	competency
determination or instead require a new trial is a decision for the trial court
to make on remand. 	Saunders v. State, 242 So. 3d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2018). 	If the trial court determines that a retrospective competency
evaluation cannot be conducted in a manner consistent with due process,
it must grant a new trial. 	Mason, 489 So. 2d at 737; see also Machin v.
State, 267 So. 3d 1098, 1101-02 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (providing that there
are multiple potential paths on remand, first dependent on whether a nunc
pro tunc evaluation is possible, and then dependent on whether the
defendant 	was 	competent 	at 	the 	time 	of 	evaluation 	or 	whether 	the
defendant is presently competent).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to initially

4
determine whether a nunc pro tunc competency evaluation is feasible.
Only if the trial court determines that a nunc pro tunc competency
evaluation is not feasible, or determines that appellant was not competent
at the time of trial, would the court grant appellant a new trial.1 	See
Brown, 250 So. 3d at 765; Mason, 489 So. 2d at 737.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
CIKLIN and S HAW , JJ., concur.
* 	* 	*
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.
1 Before proceeding to a new trial, the court must additionally make a finding of
competency at the time of the new trial.