Williams v. State

For the reasons the majority opinion explicates, I agree precedent requires us to affirm without reaching or requiring briefing by counsel on any question concerning the appellant’s competency to (stand or) waive trial. See Morgan v. State, 486 So.2d 1356, 1357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (“[W]e cannot reach that issue because the trial court’s rulings are not dis-positive.”). But the record is not inconsistent with the view that appellant’s plea was induced by assurances that competency issues would be addressed on direct appeal:

THE COURT: ... Okay. Mr. Williams, do you understand that there…