JEAN PIERRE FRANCIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed Jean Pierre Francis' criminal conviction but remanded the case for entry of a proper written order confirming his competency to stand trial, which had been made orally but not documented in a signed court order.
An oral finding of competency must be memorialized in a proper written order signed by the trial court. When only court minutes signed by a deputy clerk document the competency determination, the proper remedy is to affirm the judgment and remand for entry of a nunc pro tunc order finding the defendant competent to stand trial.
[1] A conviction will be affirmed when the trial court orally found the defendant competent to stand trial, even if the written order was not properly entered by the judge.
[2] A case will be remanded for the entry of a nunc pro tunc order finding a defendant competent to stand trial when the only written confirmation of competency is a court mi…
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“If, at any time after such commitment, the court decides, after hearing, that the defendant is competent to proceed, it shall enter its order so finding and shall proceed.”
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(c)(7) establishing the requirement for a written order of competency
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court initially found Francis incompetent to stand trial. Subsequently, after a hearing, the trial court determined that Francis was compete…
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 Nunc Pro Tunc Order cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm Jean Pierre Francis’ conviction, but remand for the entry of a proper nunc pro tunc order finding Francis competent to stand trial. Although the trial court found Francis competent to proceed to trial after previously having found him to be incompetent, the only written confirmation thereof is contained in a document entitled “Court Minutes/Order” signed by the deputy clerk, not by the trial court. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court for the entry of a proper written order of competence, nunc pro tunc. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.212(c)(7) (stating: “If, at any time after such commitment, the court decides, after hearing, that the defendant is competent to proceed, it shall enter its order so finding and shall proceed.”); Cor-bitt v. State, 744 So.2d 1130, 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (ruling: “[W]here the trial court has entered an oral finding that the defendant is competent, but no written order of competency has been entered, the proper remedy is to affirm the judgment and to remand the case to the trial court for entry of a nunc pro tunc order finding the defendant competent to stand trial.”). Accord Hampton v. State, 988 So.2d 103, 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Bailey v. State, 931 So.2d 224, 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). See also Ortiz v. State, 55 So.3d 724, 724 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).1
Judgment and Sentence AFFIRMED; Case REMANDED for entry of proper order.
MONACO, C.J., PALMER, and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hill v. State, 228 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…PER CURIAM. We' affirm Jesse Hill’s convictions, but remand for the entry of a proper nunc pro tunc order finding Hill competent to stand trial. See Francis v. State, 65 So. 3d 103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (holding that where trial court made oral findings that defendant was competent but failed to enter written order of competency, proper remedy was to affirm judgment and -remand case to trial court for entry of nunc pró tunc orde…
-
Mason v. State, 71 So. 3d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…her rule 3.212(b) nor rule 3.212(c)(7) (governing a finding of competency after the defendant has previously been found incompetent) expressly require a written order, the decisions of this and other courts require a written order. Francis v. State, 65 So. 3d 103, 103 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Ortiz v. State, 55 So. 3d 724 (Fla. 5th DCA [*230] 2011); Childs v. State, 44 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Martinez v. State, 851 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). AFFIRMED and REMANDED with directions. DAVIS, VAN…
-
Charlain ST. Charles v. State, 118 So. 3d 271 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…PER CURIAM. We affirm the judgment entered below, but remand for the trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc written order to reflect the oral finding of competency at the June 3, 2011, hearing. See Francis v. State, 65 So. 3d 103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Corbitt v. State, 744 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Hampton v. State, 988 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Musa Shabazz v. State, 931 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Bailey v. State, 931 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Ortiz v. State, 55 So. 3d 724 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- Quiana A. Felders v. State, 55 So. 3d 724 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)