Case Analysis: Leeks v. State (Fla. 2nd DCA Case No. 2D2024-2340) (May 1, 2026)
- J. Ruffin Hunt
- 1 day ago
- 4 min read
Florida Appeals Court Clarifies Competency Rulings: What Leeks v. State Means for Criminal Defendants
If you or a loved one is facing serious criminal charges in Florida, one critical issue that can arise is competency to stand trial. In a recent decision from Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal, Leeks v. State, the court addressed an important procedural question: what happens when a trial court finds a defendant competent, but fails to put that finding in writing?
At Hunt Law, our Tampa criminal defense firm closely monitors appellate decisions like this because they directly impact how criminal cases are handled in courtrooms throughout the Tampa Bay area and across Florida.
This article breaks down the ruling, explains the law on competency, and highlights what this decision means for defendants.
Overview of Leeks v. State
In Leeks v. State, the defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and improper exhibition of a firearm. On appeal, he argued that the trial court committed reversible error by:
Failing to enter a written order finding him competent to proceed, and
Failing to conduct a proper competency hearing
The appellate court ultimately affirmed the conviction, holding that although the trial court made a procedural mistake, it did not rise to the level of fundamental error.
What Does “Competency to Stand Trial” Mean?
Under Florida law, a defendant cannot be tried unless they are mentally competent. The legal standard set out in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.211 is whether the defendant:
Has a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings, and
Has the ability to consult with their attorney with a reasonable degree of understanding
Courts evaluate competency using factors such as:
Understanding of the charges and possible penalties
Ability to communicate with counsel
Awareness of courtroom proceedings
Capacity to testify and behave appropriately in court
In Leeks, the trial court determined the defendant met all of these criteria.
The Trial Court’s Error: No Written Competency Order
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212 requires that:
If a court finds a defendant competent, it must enter a written order reflecting that finding.
In this case, the trial court:
Ordered a psychological evaluation, which found the defendant competent
Conducted discussions (colloquies) with the defendant during proceedings
Orally found the defendant competent multiple times
However, the court never reduced that finding to writing, which is technically required.
Why the Appeal Failed: No Fundamental Error
Even though the appellate court agreed that the trial judge made a mistake, it still affirmed the conviction.
Why?
Because under Florida law, not every error results in reversal.
To win on appeal, the defendant had to show fundamental error, a serious error that:
Goes to the foundation of the case, and
Undermines the fairness of the entire proceeding
The court relied heavily on the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Santiago-Gonzalez v. State, which held:
If the trial court makes a supported oral competency finding,
And the issue was not raised at trial,
Then the lack of a written order is not fundamental error
That is exactly what happened in Leeks.
No Formal Hearing? Still Not Reversible Error
The defendant also argued that the trial court failed to hold a proper competency hearing.
The appellate court rejected this argument as well, explaining that:
A formal, separate hearing is not always required
A status hearing or pretrial proceeding can suffice if:
The court reviews a competency evaluation, and
Makes an independent determination on the record
In Leeks, the trial judge:
Considered the psychological evaluation
Questioned the defendant directly
Observed his behavior throughout the trial
That was enough.
Key Legal Takeaways from Leeks v. State
1. Written Orders Are Required, But Not Always Fatal if Missing
Trial courts must enter written competency orders, but failure to do so won’t automatically result in reversal.
2. Objections Matter
If defense counsel does not raise the issue at trial, appellate courts are far less likely to reverse.
3. Oral Findings Can Be Enough
As long as the trial court clearly finds competency on the record and the evidence supports it, the ruling will likely stand.
4. Competency Hearings Can Be Informal
Courts have flexibility in how they determine competency, and formal hearings are not always required.
5. Fundamental Error Is a High Standard
Appellate courts will not reverse unless the error seriously affects the fairness or integrity of the proceedings.
Why This Case Matters for Tampa Criminal Defense
This decision is especially important for criminal defense attorneys practicing in Tampa and Hillsborough County because it reinforces a key reality:
Procedural mistakes by a judge do not automatically mean a case will be reversed.
That means:
Defense attorneys must be proactive at the trial level
Competency concerns must be clearly raised and preserved
The record must be carefully developed
At Hunt Law, we take these responsibilities seriously. When competency is at issue, we:
Push for formal evaluations when appropriate
Ensure the court follows proper procedures
Preserve issues for appeal when necessary
Facing Criminal Charges? Competency Issues Can Be Critical
Competency is not just a technical legal issue, it can determine whether a case proceeds at all.
If you or a loved one is dealing with:
Mental health concerns
Questions about understanding court proceedings
Serious felony charges
You need a defense attorney who understands how to identify and litigate competency issues effectively.
Contact Hunt Law, Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney
At Hunt Law, we focus exclusively on criminal defense in the Tampa Bay area. We stay on top of appellate decisions like Leeks v. State to provide our clients with informed, strategic representation.
If you are facing criminal charges in Tampa or the surrounding areas, contact us today to discuss your case.