TAVARRUS KING

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

PER CURIAM.

Tavarrus King (“the Defendant”) petitions this court for a writ of certiorari. He seeks an immediate competency hearing, asserting that the trial court has not held a competency hearing within the time frame required under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(b). We grant the petition.

Rule 3.210(b) provides, in pertinent part:

If, at any material stage of a criminal proceeding, the court of its own motion, or on motion of counsel for the defendant or for the state, has reasonable ground to believe that the defendant is not mentally competent to proceed, the court shall immediately enter its order setting a time for a hearing to determine the defendant’s mental condition, which shall be held no later than 20 days after the date of the filing of the motion . . . .

On February 8, 2022, the Defendant’s counsel filed an amended motion in the Defendant’s four criminal proceedings pending below, asserting that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the Defendant was not competent to proceed. In this motion, counsel specifically highlighted to the trial court that, under rule 3.210(b), the competency hearing shall be held no later than twenty days after the date of the filing of the motion.

The trial court granted the motion, appointed an expert to examine the

Defendant, and set a competency hearing. The Defendant nevertheless seeks certiorari relief here because the court’s order did not set the hearing to be held within twenty days from the filing of his motion and, secondly, 2 because the time allotted by the trial court for the hearing suggests that the court will only be holding a status conference, and not an actual hearing to determine the Defendant’s competency to proceed.

In Lee v. State, 145 So. 3d 953, 954 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014), this court, citing to Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513, 514–15 (Fla. 1971), noted the importance of the words “shall” and “immediately” in rule 3.210(b) as lending urgency and significance to the duty of the trial judge to promptly conduct the required competency hearing. The trial court’s order, which was not entered until fifteen days after the Defendant’s amended motion was filed and, as described above, did not set the competency hearing to be held within twenty days of the filing of the Defendant’s motion, does not comply with rule 3.210(b). Accordingly, we conclude that certiorari relief is appropriate, grant the petition, and direct the trial court to hold a competency hearing forthwith. 1 See Lee, 145 So. 3d at 954 (concluding that certiorari relief is proper when competency hearing not held within twenty days as required under rule 3.210(b) and directing trial court to hold competency hearing forthwith); Carrion v. State, 859 So. 2d 563, 565 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (holding that where evidence presented entitled defendant to a competency We also note that the Defendant is currently being held in the Orange 1 County Jail. 3 hearing, failure to hold competency hearing deprived defendant of due process rights and concluding that writ of certiorari is appropriate remedy).

PETITION GRANTED.

LAMBERT, C.J., COHEN and HARRIS, JJ., concur. 4