MICHAEL E. RAMSEY
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.
The appellate court reversed a conviction and sentence for attempted armed robbery because the trial court failed to conduct a competency hearing and improperly imposed discretionary fines. The case highlights the mandatory procedural requirements for determining a defendant's competency and pronouncing sentencing.
Yes, the trial court committed fundamental error by failing to conduct a competency hearing and enter a final order. Yes, the trial court erred in imposing unpronounced discretionary fines. Both issues warrant reversal.
[1] Once a trial court has reasonable grounds to question a defendant's competency, it must conduct an evidentiary hearing and enter a written order determining competency; f…
[2] A trial court must individually pronounce each discretionary fine imposed, and a defendant's waiver of a reading of the statutory authority for such fines does not reliev…
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“Failure to hold a competency hearing and enter a written order is fundamental error and requires reversal.”
Establishes the standard for reversal due to lack of a competency hearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Ramsey was convicted and sentenced for attempted armed robbery. The trial court granted a motion for a competency evaluation but never held a …
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 Evaluation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Michael Ramsey appeals his conviction and sentence for attempted armed robbery. Ramsey asserts, and the State concedes, the trial court committed fundamental error by failing to conduct a competency hearing and by failing to enter a final order determining he was competent. Ramsey additionally argues, and the State further concedes, the trial court erred in denying his Motion to Correct Sentencing Error for imposing unpronounced discretionary fines. Because the trial court erred on both issues, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
As to the first issue raised, once a trial court has reasonable grounds to question a defendant’s competency, it must hold a hearing. Sheheane v. State, 228 So. 3d 1178, 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (citing Zern v. State, 191 So. 3d 962, 964 (Fla. 1st DCA
2016)). “Failure to hold a competency hearing and enter a written order is fundamental error and requires reversal.” Anderson v. State, 303 So. 3d 288, 288 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (citing Dortch v. State, 242 So. 3d 431, 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), review granted, State v. Dortch, No. SC18-681, 2018 WL 3635017 (Fla. July 11, 2018)).
Here, the trial court granted Ramsey’s motion for a competency evaluation and appointed an expert to conduct that evaluation, but it never conducted a hearing, nor did it make a final determination as to his competency. Because the trial court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing and issue a written order on competency, we reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct a nunc pro tunc evaluation of Ramsey’s competency or conduct a new trial. See Anderson, 303 So. 3d at 288 (citing Brooks v. State, 180 So. 3d 1094, 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)).
As to the second issue, because the trial court was tasked with individually pronouncing each discretionary fine to be imposed, regardless of any waiver by Ramsey to a reading of the statutory authority, we agree the trial court’s imposition of fines must be reversed. See Johnson v. State, 293 So. 3d 582, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (holding that a defendant’s waiver of a reading of the statutory authority for discretionary fines did not absolve a trial court of its responsibility to individually pronounce the fines (citing Nix v. State, 84 So. 3d 424, 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012))).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ROWE, BILBREY, and NORDBY, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Zern v. State, 191 So. 3d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
- NIX v. State, 84 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Brooks v. State, 180 So. 3d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Hicks v. State, 915 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Sheheane v. State, 228 So. 3d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)
- Dortch v. State, 242 So. 3d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
- Correll v. Johnson v. State of Fla. (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)