The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded this case for the trial court to determine whether it could conduct a hearing to determine Cookston's competency at the time of trial. The trial court never made this determination; instead, the judge simply took testimony from Cookston's trial attorney, made her own comments, and cited a stale competency evaluation that took place n months prior to trial, and two and half years prior to the hearing. The evaluation suggested Cookston's condition be closely monitored and that a reevaluation may be required. Was Cookston's Constitutional Rights to due process and a fair trial violated by the trial court making a retrospective determination of competency a year and half after trial?

Was Cookston's Constitutional Rights to due-process and fair-trial violated by the trial court making a retrospective determination of competency a year and half after trial?