CLIFFORD GOODE
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Clifford Goode appealed his concurrent fifty-eight-month sentences imposed across four cases, challenging both the trial court's rejection of a downward departure sentence and its failure to enter a written competency order. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion regarding sentencing but agreed that a written competency order was required, resulting in affirmance of the sentence with remand for entry of the order.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the downward departure sentence request. However, the trial court erred by failing to enter a written competency order as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(b). The judgment and sentence were affirmed, but the case was remanded for entry of a nunc pro tunc written competency order.
“If the court finds the defendant competent to proceed, the court shall enter its order so finding and shall proceed.”
This quote from Fla. R. Crim. Pro. 3.212(b) establishes the mandatory requirement for a written competency order, which the trial court failed to comply with.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGoode faced charges in four separate cases and filed motions to determine competency in each. An examining physician opined that Goode was competent. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Competency To Proceed cases and more on FLexlaw
COHEN, J.
Clifford Goode faced charges in four separate cases and filed a motion to determine competency in each case. Following an evaluation, the examining physician opined that Goode was competent. The trial court held a competency hearing and orally pronounced that Goode was competent to proceed.
Goode subsequently entered an open plea to all charges, in which the State agreed to a sentence cap of fifty-eight months. At the sentencing hearing, Goode requested, over the State’s objection, a downward departure sentence. The trial court rejected Goode’s request and imposed concurrent, fifty-eight-month sentences on all counts.
Goode appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in: (1) failing to impose a downward departure sentence, and (2) failing to enter a written competency order. We find no abuse of discretion related to the trial court’s rejection of Goode’s request for a downward departure sentence. However, we agree with Goode that the trial court was required to enter a written competency order. Fla. R. Crim. Pro. 3.212(b) (“If the court finds the defendant competent to proceed, the court shall enter its order so finding and shall proceed.”).
Therefore, we affirm Goode’s judgment and sentence but remand for entry of a nunc pro tunc written competency order to the date that the trial court made its oral finding of competency. See Smith v. State, 967 So. 2d 1002, 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).
AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions.
WALLIS and TRAVER, JJ., concur. 2