With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". his competency. See Savage, 530 So.2d at 1079 (reversing for an evidentiary hearing because defendant’s mental status was never addressed at the plea hearing and the record “reveals that [defendant's participation in the plea colloquy was limited almost entirely to affirmative responses to the questions posed to him by the trial court”). In addition, because Arseneau had been uncooperative with defense counsel, it is not clear that he was able to disclose to counsel facts pertinent to the case or consult with his counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. Furthermore, Arseneau’s mental health issues were discussed during both hearings but neither the trial court nor counsel ever addressed his competency. See Jackson v. State, 29 So.3d 1161, 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (<HOLDING>); Ortiz v. State, 968 So.2d 681, 686 (Fla. 1st

A: holding that the state does not have to prove a defendants competency to stand trial
B: recognizing that plea colloquy demonstrated that the defendant understood his rights and voluntarily relinquished them
C: holding that plea colloquy did not refute defendants claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate his competency because defendants competency was never addressed at the plea colloquy
D: holding that a signed plea form without a colloquy to establish that defendant read and understood the contents of the form was insufficient to conclusively refute defendants claim that he was not advised regarding the sentence to be imposed
C.