CODY SHANE HOLLAND, 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.
Cody Shane Holland appeals his burglary conviction, arguing he was denied due process because the trial court failed to independently determine his competency to stand trial. The Second District Court of Appeal affirms the conviction and sentence but remands for entry of a written competency order.
The trial court's oral determination of competency was valid because it independently considered the experts' reports, counsel's statements, and the defendant's courtroom behavior. However, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(b) mandates entry of a written order of competency, so the case must be remanded for entry of a nunc pro tunc order.
[1] A trial court may determine a defendant's competency to stand trial based on expert reports and the defendant's courtroom behavior, even if counsel attempts to stipulate…
[2] A trial court's oral determination of a defendant's competency to stand trial is insufficient without a written order memorializing that determination.
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“Even in a situation where all the experts opine that a defendant is competent, the trial court could presumably disagree based on other evidence such as the defendant's courtroom behavior or attorney representations”
Establishes that trial court must independently evaluate competency rather than merely adopting expert findings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHolland was charged with burglary of an unoccupied dwelling. After counsel filed a suggestion of incompetency, the trial court appointed two experts w…
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 Stipulation To Competency cases and more on FLexlaw
Cody Shane Holland appeals his conviction and sentence for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling. We affirm the conviction and sentence. Because the trial court made an oral determination that. Holland was competent but failed to render a written order to that effect we must remand the case to the trial court for entry of a nunc pro tunc order finding Holland competent to stand trial.
Holland argues that he was deprived of due process because the trial court failed to make an independent determination that Holland was competent to proceed with trial and instead allowed counsel to stipulate to Holland’s competency. We disagree. First, Holland was never determined to be incompetent. The record reflects that after counsel filed a suggestion of incompetency as to Holland, the. trial court appointed two experts who each submitted- written reports indicating Holland was competent -to proceed. At Holland’s- competency hearing, with Holland present, the court considered the experts’ reports, the statements of defense counsel, and Holland’s demeanor. See Dougherty v. State, 149 So.3d 672, 678 (Fla.2014) (reasoning that a defendant cannot stipulate to his own competency even where the experts’ written reports agree because “[e]ven in a situation where all the experts opine that a defendant is competent,1 the trial court could presumably disagree based on-’other evidence such as the defendant’s courtroom behavior or attorney representations”).. The court then made an oral determination that it was “adopting] the-findings that both the doctors indicate he’s competent, he understands the proceedings, [and] he understands his lawyer.,.. ” See Fowler v. State, 255 So.2d 513, 515 (Fla.1971) (“[W]here the, parties and the judge agree, the-trial Court may-decide the issue of competency on the basis .of the [experts’] written reports alone.”).
Although defense counsel indicated at the close of the competency hearing that he would prepare a written, order memorializing,the trial court’s oral determination, the record contains no such order.- Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(b) mandates the entry of "a written order of competency. See Dougherty, 149 So.3d at 677. Accordingly, we remand the case to the trial court for entry5 of a nunc pro tunc order finding Holland competent to stand trial. See Hampton v. State, 988 So.2d 103, 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Corbitt v. State, 744 So.2d 1130, 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
Affirmed; remanded with directions.
KELLY and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Kerven Charles v. State, 223 So. 3d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…al court conducted a sufficient competency hearing where the court made an oral determination that the defendant was competent after considering the experts’ reports, the statements of defense counsel, and the defendant’s demeanor. Holland v. State, 185 So. 3d 636, 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). By contrast, a trial court did not properly decide the issue of competency where the parties stipulated to the defendant’s restored competency and the court conducted its own review of the doctor’s report, but “neither part…
-
Matthew v. Hawks, 226 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…o satisfy Rule 3.210(b), which requires the court to hold a hearing to independently determine the Defendant’s competency. Further, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(b) “mandates the entry of a written order of competency.” Holland v. State, 185 So. 3d 636, 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (citing Dougherty, 149 So. 3d at 677). Even if an evaluation indicates that a defendant is competent to proceed, the law requires the court to issue a written order finding the defendant competent. Deferrell v. State, 199 So.…
-
Gordon v. State, 219 So. 3d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…a written order and that the trial court failed to provide such here. Although the State contends this issue was waived and, thus, not renewable on appeal, a review of the case law suggests that this argument is without merit. See Holland v. State, 185 So. 3d 636, 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). Here, the trial court made an oral finding that defendant was competent to proceed, but failed to render a written order to that effect. This cause must be remanded to the trial court to enter a written order consistent with…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014)
- Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1971)
- Corbitt v. State, 744 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Hampton v. State, 988 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)