ANTWAN T. MANN
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 denied Antwan Mann's request for a belated appeal of a retroactive competency order. The court clarified that such orders are not directly appealable and that a timely petition for writ of certiorari is the proper avenue for review, with no provision for belated certiorari.
No, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b) does not authorize a direct appeal of a competency order. A defendant must file a timely petition for writ of certiorari to challenge such an order, and there is no provision for belated certiorari review.
[1] A defendant may not seek a belated appeal of a retroactive competency determination order.
[2] A defendant may challenge a finding of competency through a timely petition for writ of certiorari.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b) does not authorize this Court to independently review an order on competency.”
Establishes that the appellate court cannot directly review competency orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAntwan Mann was convicted of felony battery. His lawyer raised a concern about his mental competency to stand trial. After a nunc pro tunc order retro…
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 Retroactive Competency Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Antwan T. Mann seeks a belated appeal of an order retroactively finding him competent to proceed to trial.1 Mann was originally charged with aggravated battery and felony battery. During the course of representation, Mann’s lawyer filed a suggestion of mental incompetence to stand trial.
The trial court ordered an examination to determine whether Mann was competent to proceed to trial. The evaluation concluded that while Mann had various mental health issues, he was competent to proceed.
At trial, Mann was convicted of two counts of felony battery.
The trial court later dismissed one count based on double jeopardy and sentenced Mann as a prison release reoffender on the remaining felony battery count. On direct appeal, Mann argued that the trial court failed to conduct a hearing and enter an order determining his competency. The State conceded error. This Court remanded for the trial court to make a retroactive competency determination, if possible. See Mann v. State, 254 So. 3d 1131 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).
On remand, the trial court conducted the requisite hearing and entered a nunc pro tunc order finding that Mann was competent to procced at the time of trial.2 Mann did not timely appeal that order, and he now seeks a belated appeal. As observed in Pamphile v. State, 260 So. 3d 1185, 1185–86 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018), Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b) does not authorize this Court to independently review an order on competency.
However, Mann and those in a similar position may challenge a finding of competency through a timely petition for writ of certiorari. See State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250, 253 (Fla. 1988) (noting cases in which “the district courts of appeal have granted common law certiorari to quash nonappealable interlocutory orders in criminal cases which departed from the essential requirements of law” (citations omitted)).
However, there is no belated certiorari review. See Owings v. State, 181 So. 3d 588, 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).3
COHEN, BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.3 Mann’s allegations, even if timely, were inadequate to warrant certiorari review. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(4)(F)(i) (requiring specific allegations “that constitute the basis for entitlement”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brownlee v. Haley, 306 F.3d 1043 (11th Cir. 2002)
Authorities Cited
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1978)
- Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (U.S. 1985)
- State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1988)
- Pleasures II Adult Video, Inc. v. The City OF Sarasota & Tim Litchet, 833 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Pamphile v. State, 260 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
- Sherod Lamar Owings v. State, 181 So. 3d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
- Mann v. State, 254 So. 3d 1131 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)