JAMES M. HENDRIX, DOC #T17743, 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 held that while the trial court properly determined the defendant was competent to proceed, it failed to enter a written order to that effect. The judgment and sentence are affirmed, but the case is remanded for entry of a nunc pro tunc written order.
The defendant was found guilty of burglary and grand theft. The trial court appointed an expert to evaluate his competency to proceed to trial and det…
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 Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.212(b) cases and more on FLexlaw
James M. Hendrix appeals the judgment and sentence entered after a *824jury found him guilty. of two counts of burglary of a dwelling and two counts of grand theft. We reject Hendrix’s argument that the trial court, after appointing an expert to evaluate his competency to proceed to trial, failed to hold an adequate competency hearing and failed to sufficiently determine that he was competent to proceed; the record establishes that the court properly made an independent determination of Hendrix’s competency. See Arnold v. State, 214 So.3d 739, 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).
. The trial court, however, only orally pronounced this determination and did not enter a written order of competency as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(b). The unsigned “memo of sentence/order of the court,” which was filed with the clerk of the circuit court following the competency hearing and states “Comp Hrg-Held-Evals Rec: Deft Comp to proceed,” does not satisfy the requirement of a written competency order. See Shakes v. State, 185 So.3d 679, 682 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (citing Carroll v. State, 157 So.3d 385, 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)); see also Phillips v. State, 198 So.3d 789, 790 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (collecting cases in which this court has repeatedly discouraged use of “memo of sentence/order of the court”).
Accordingly, we affirm Hendrix’s judgment and sentence but remand for the entry of a nunc pro tunc written order adjudicating him competent to proceed. See Arnold, 214 So.3d at 740 (citing Holland v. State, 185 So.3d 636, 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)).
Affirmed; remanded with directions.
VILLANTI and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dagan v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…those two counts, forms that the Tenth Circuit has persisted in using despite a cavalcade of opinions from this court decrying this practice and pointing out specific problems with the circuit’s widespread use of the forms. See Hendrix v. State, 224 So. 3d 823, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (holding that a snapout cannot serve as a written competency order); Gray v. State, 198 So. 3d 780, 782–83 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding that a snapout cannot serve as a written judgment or sentence); Phillips v. State, 198…
-
Doctor v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Holland v. State, 185 So. 3d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
- Odane Shakes v. State, 185 So. 3d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
- Connell L. Carroll v. State, 157 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
- Phillips v. State, 198 So. 3d 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
- Ob Akeem Rendell Arnold v. State, 214 So. 3d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)