D.Y.
v.
STATE
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.
A trial court errs when it makes an oral finding that a defendant is competent to proceed but fails to enter a written order reflecting that finding, and the proper remedy is remand for entry of a nunc pro tunc written order.
[1] A trial court errs when it fails to enter a written order regarding a defendant's competency to proceed.
[2] Where a trial court makes an oral finding of competency but fails to enter a written order, the proper remedy is to remand for the entry of a nunc pro tunc order.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“If the court finds the defendant competent to proceed, the court shall enter its order so finding and shall proceed.”
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(b)
D.Y., a juvenile adjudicated incompetent in a prior case, was evaluated by three doctors regarding competency to proceed; two doctors disagreed on the…
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 Malingering cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed March 28, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D17-0400 Lower Tribunal No. 16-468
________________
D.Y., a juvenile,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Orlando A. Prescott, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jonathan Greenberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Joanne Diez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SUAREZ, LAGOA, and LINDSEY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
D.Y., a juvenile, appeals an order placing D.Y. on probation under the supervision of the Department of Juvenile Justice (“DJJ”) and withholding adjudication of delinquency. D.Y. had been adjudicated incompetent in a prior case that was ultimately dismissed. Thus, the trial court concluded that D.Y.
remained legally incompetent and appointed two doctors to evaluate D.Y. One doctor concluded D.Y. was incompetent, while the second doctor found that D.Y.
was competent. The trial court then appointed a third doctor who subsequently found D.Y. to be incompetent, but also opined that D.Y. could be malingering and feigning ignorance with regards to his legal competence. The trial court made an oral finding that D.Y. was competent to proceed to the adjudicatory hearing but failed to enter a written order memorializing its findings as to D.Y.’s competency.
The case proceeded to an adjudicatory hearing where the trial court found D.Y.
delinquent as charged, withheld adjudication, and placed D.Y. on probation.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(b) provides, “If the court finds the defendant competent to proceed, the court shall enter its order so finding and shall proceed.” Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.212(b). Thus, a trial court errs when it fails to enter a written order regarding a defendant’s competency. See Gordon v. State, 219 So. 3d 189, 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“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 its oral pronouncement.”), review denied, SC17-978, 2017 WL
4546004, at *1 (Fla. Oct. 12, 2017).
Where the trial court has entered an oral finding that the defendant is competent, but no written order of competency has been entered, the proper remedy is to remand the case to the trial court for entry of a nunc pro tunc order finding the defendant competent to stand trial. Razuri v. State, 126 So. 3d 261,
261 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (citing Corbitt v. State, 744 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA
1999)).1
Here, the trial court failed to enter a written order reflecting the trial court’s determination that D.Y. was competent to proceed to trial. Accordingly, we remand with instructions for the trial court to enter a written order, nunc pro tunc,
reflecting its oral pronouncement regarding D.Y.’s competency.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Corbitt v. State, 744 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Gordon v. State, 219 So. 3d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Razuri v. State, 126 So. 3d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Ervin Leyton v. State, 126 So. 3d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)