D.W.
v.
STATE

Fla. 5th DCA | 2018-03-05
No. 5D18-456
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2018)

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.


Holding

A trial court must grant a motion to determine competency when the motion satisfies the requirements of Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.095(a)(1) and section 985.19, and the trial court's bare denial without elaboration constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law.


Headnotes

[1] When a motion to determine competency in a juvenile proceeding complies with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.095(a)(1) and section 985.19, the trial court must grant…

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

Facts & Procedural History

D.W., a child, sought mandamus relief after the trial court denied his counsel's motion to determine competency filed on February 7, 2018, without ela…

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.


Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM. D.W. petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to toll speedy trial, stay all proceedings, and appoint two experts to evaluate his competency pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.095 and section 985.19(1), Florida

Statutes (2016). We sua sponte treat this matter as a petition for certiorari, find the trial court’s order departs from the essential requirements of law, and grant the petition.

D.W.’s counsel filed a motion to determine competency on February 7, 2018. The trial court denied the motion without elaboration. The motion satisfies the requirements of rule 8.095(a)(1) and section 985.19, and should have been granted. Hence, we quash the order denying the motion to determine competency. On remand, the trial court shall stay the proceedings and order an examination in compliance with rule 8.095 and section

985.19.

PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.

ORFINGER, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw