CARLOS PAVILUS
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 must enter a written order reflecting its oral competency finding, even when the oral ruling and competency determination were sufficient.
[1] A trial court must enter a written order documenting its competency finding, even when an oral determination was made at a competency hearing and was otherwise sufficient…
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 intelligenceCarlos Pavilus was convicted by jury of lewd or lascivious molestation. At trial, the court conducted a competency hearing and orally found the defend…
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 Competency Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Carlos Pavilus (the defendant) appeals his judgment and sentence, entered by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of lewd or lascivious molestation. He argues that the trial court erred by 1) conducting an insufficient competency hearing; 2) failing to make an independent competency determination; and 3) failing to enter a written order on competency. The record refutes the defendant’s arguments that the trial court conducted an insufficient competency hearing and failed to make an independent determination of his competency. See Davis v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D506, D506 (Fla. 5th DCA Mar.
2, 2018). Nevertheless, because the trial court failed to enter a written order reflecting its oral finding of competency announced at the hearing, we remand for the entry of a written order, nunc pro tunc to the date when the oral ruling was made. See Wriden v. State,
43 Fla. L. Weekly, D559, D559 (Fla. 5th DCA Mar. 9, 2018). In all other respects, we affirm.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions. SAWAYA, PALMER, and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pavilus v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D506 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
-
State v. Tosha Jo Robbins, 247 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
-
State v. Crumbley (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Pavilus v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D506 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)