KARIM BIEN AIME
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.
While the trial court properly determined defendant competency based on expert evaluation and oral pronouncement, it was required to memorialize that determination in a written order nunc pro tunc to the date of the oral ruling.
[1] A trial court may determine defendant competency based on written expert evaluation and written report without requiring live testimony, provided the court reviews the ma…
[2] A trial court must memorialize its oral determination of defendant competency in a written order nunc pro tunc to the date of the oral pronouncement, even if the substant…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“live testimony is unnecessary and trial court may determine competency on basis of written report”
Court citing Merriell v. State regarding proper procedure for competency determination
Appellant was evaluated for competency and found competent by an expert; the trial court reviewed the evaluation and announced at a hearing that Appel…
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 Written Order Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The record in this Anders appeal reflects that at the pertinent time prior to sentencing, Appellant was evaluated for competency and found competent; the expert’s evaluation was provided to the trial court; the trial court reviewed it and addressed it at a hearing, announcing that he found Appellant was competent; and counsel for both sides agreed that Appellant was competent. In addition, the record reflects that the trial court had interacted with and observed Appellant in earlier proceedings as well as at the hearing addressing competency. The procedure utilized here was proper. See Merriell v. State, 169 So. 3d 1287, 1288–89 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (holding that live testimony is unnecessary and trial court may determine competency on basis of written report).
The record also reflects, however, that the trial court did not memorialize the oral ruling in a written order, as was required. Id. at 1289 (requiring court to enter nunc pro tunc order of competency following hearing at which court orally found defendant competent). We affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence, but remand for entry of a written order finding Appellant competent, nunc pro tunc to the date of the trial court’s oral pronouncement of competency. AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
KELSEY, JAY, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. _____________________________