DUANE PHINEAS ROSHELL
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Written Order Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant pleaded no contest to witness tampering and battery. His sole argument in this appeal is that the trial court erred by failing to memorialize in writing its oral finding that Appellant was competent to proceed. The State concedes the court failed to enter a written order as required by Florida law. We accordingly affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence, but remand for entry of a written, nunc pro tunc order adjudicating him competent to proceed. See, e.g., Mullens v. State, 197 So. 3d 16, 37 (Fla. 2016) (remanding for a written competency order despite a guilty plea); Dickey v. State, 224 So. 3d 862, 863 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (remanding for a written competency order while affirming judgment and sentence).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions. WOLF and WINOKUR, JJ., and COLAW, JAMES M., ASSOCIATE JUDGE, concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Khadafy Kareem Mullens v. State, 197 So. 3d 16 (Fla. 2016)
- Titus Dickey v. State, 224 So. 3d 862 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)