T.M., A CHILD, 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 court affirmed the adjudication of delinquency for felony cruelty to animals but remanded for the trial court to enter a written competency order nunc pro tunc, as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(c)(7).
A trial court must enter a written order finding a juvenile competent to proceed, even if an oral finding was made at a hearing.
[1] A trial court must enter a written order finding a juvenile competent to proceed to an adjudicatory hearing, as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(c)(7)…
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“[T]he record decidedly lacks a written order from the trial court adjudicating Hunter competent for trial, as required by [Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure] 3.212(c)(7)”
Court citing Hunter v. State to establish the requirement for a written competency order
T.M. was adjudicated delinquent for felony cruelty to animals. The trial court orally found T.M. competent to proceed on October 2, 2015, but failed t…
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 Written Order Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
T.M. appeals his adjudication of delinquency after the trial court found that he committed felony cruelty to animals. T.M. raises two issues on appeal, contending that the trial court erred in: 1) denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that T.M. did not demonstrate an intent to harm the dog; and 2) failing to enter an order finding him competent to proceed to an adjudicatory hearing. As to the first issue, we affirm without further discussion.
As to the second issue, the trial court had previously found that T.M. was incompetent to proceed to an adjudicatory hearing. On October 2, 2015, the trial court held a subsequent hearing and orally found that T.M. was competent to proceed. However, as the State concedes, the record of this appeal does not contain a written order with this finding entered following the hearing. See Hunter v. State, 174 So.3d 1011, 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“[T]he record decidedly lacks a written order from the trial court adjudicating Hunter competent for trial, as required by [Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure] 3.212(c)(7) ... we simply remand to the trial court to enter the needed written adjudication nunc pro tunc.”). Therefore, we remand with instructions for the trial court to enter an order, nunc pro tunc, finding T.M. competent to proceed to an adjudicatory hearing.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions.
SAWAYA, PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur.