Duncan v. State

The appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by finding him competent to proceed 'with sentencing despite the uncontested testimony of two experts that he was incompetent. The State concedes error and asks this Court to remand for resentencing following a new competency hearing. See Gore v. State, 24 So.3d 1, 10 (Fla.2009) (holding that a determination of competency should be supported by competent and substantial evidence). The trial court should not find a defendant competent where the record provides no reason to reject overwhelming and uncontested expert testimonies to…