NATHAN DAVIS, 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.
Court affirmed Davis's convictions for burglary with battery and robbery while armed, but held the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a nunc pro tunc competency order after notice of appeal was filed, requiring the court to re-enter the order on remand.
A trial court is divested of jurisdiction to enter a nunc pro tunc competency order after a notice of appeal is filed, rendering such an order a nullity, but the court may re-enter the order upon remand if the record clearly shows competency at trial.
[1] A trial court loses jurisdiction to enter a nunc pro tunc order adjudicating competency to proceed once a notice of appeal has been filed, rendering such an order void, t…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The law is well established that, once an appeal is filed, the trial court loses jurisdiction with regard to the matter which is the subject of the appeal.”
Establishing the jurisdictional principle that divests trial courts of authority after notice of appeal.
Nathan Davis was convicted of burglary of a conveyance with battery while armed with a firearm and robbery with a firearm. The trial court entered a n…
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 Divestiture Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
Nathan Davis appeals his judgment and sentences for burglary of a conveyance with a battery while armed with a firearm and robbery with a firearm. We affirm Davis’s judgment and sentences without comment. However, we conclude that the trial court was divested of its jurisdiction to enter a nunc pro tunc order adjudicating Davis competent to proceed at trial because the trial court entered the order after Davis filed his notice of appeal.
“The law is well established that, once an appeal is filed, the trial court loses jurisdiction with regard to the matter which is the subject of the appeal.” Pace v. State, 919 So.2d 545, 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). The trial court was therefore divested of jurisdiction to cure any deficiencies or omissions, and the nunc pro tunc order is a nullity. See Dragomirecky v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 891 So.2d 633, 634 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“[A]n order entered without jurisdiction is a nullity, and cannot be considered harmless error.”). Nonetheless, it is clear from the record that Davis was competent at the time of trial. Accordingly, once the trial court obtains jurisdiction on remand, it is directed to enter a nunc pro tunc order adjudicating Davis competent to proceed at trial. See Mason v. State, 489 So.2d 734, 737 (Fla.1986) (determining that “no per se rule exists in Florida forbidding a nunc pro tunc competency determination regardless of the surrounding circumstances”).
Affirmed and remanded with directions.
SILBERMAN, C.J., and LaROSE, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Kaylesha B. Brannic, 164 So. 3d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
Authorities Cited
- Mason v. State, 489 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1986)
- Dragomirecky v. Town OF Ponce Inlet, 891 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Pace v. State, 919 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)