## Facts

- Lionel Tate was 12 years old when he was charged with first-degree murder of six-year-old Tiffany Eunick.
- The victim sustained numerous severe injuries, including a fractured skull and internal organ injuries, requiring tremendous force; no expert (including defense experts) considered the injuries consistent with accidental “play fighting.”
- Tate was tried as an adult and convicted of first-degree murder on a general verdict encompassing premeditated murder and felony murder based on aggravated child abuse.
- Before trial, the State offered a plea agreement involving juvenile detention and probation; Tate rejected the offer after a plea colloquy in which he stated he understood his choice and wanted a trial.
- Trial evidence included expert testimony that Tate had an IQ around 90, a markedly low mental age, and significant social immaturity.
- After conviction and a mandatory life sentence, defense counsel sought (1) an evidentiary hearing regarding plea-related communications and (2) a competency evaluation and hearing, asserting Tate could not understand plea consequences or assist counsel; the trial court denied these requests.

## Issues

1. Whether due process was violated when the trial court failed to order a competency evaluation and hearing despite evidence creating a bona fide doubt about Tate’s competency.
2. Whether the trial court erred by denying the post-trial request for a competency evaluation and hearing supported by sworn expert and attorney testimony.
3. Whether Tate’s additional challenges to being tried as an adult and sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment required relief.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the conviction and mandatory life sentence and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that due process was violated by (1) the failure to order a competency evaluation pretrial sua sponte when the record generated bona fide doubt and (2) the denial of the post-trial request for a competency evaluation and hearing.
- The court rejected Tate’s other constitutional and statutory challenges and limited its disposition to the competency-based due process violation.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant may not be tried unless he has sufficient present ability to consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and has a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings.
- When the record presents a bona fide doubt regarding competency, due process requires a competency evaluation and a hearing.
- Trial courts have an affirmative duty to order competency proceedings sua sponte once bona fide doubt appears; the duty is not dependent on a formal defense request.
- Denying a supported post-trial request for a competency evaluation can violate due process where it forecloses a meaningful opportunity to assess competency at the relevant time.

## Conclusion

The court reversed and remanded because the record raised bona fide doubt about a 12-year-old defendant’s competency, triggering a due process obligation to conduct competency proceedings; the trial court’s failure to do so—both pretrial and upon a supported post-trial request—required reversal even though other challenges to adult prosecution and sentencing were rejected.


Tate v. State, 864 So. 2d 44 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2003)