MARCUS PITTMAN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
An order determining competency is not independently reviewable on appeal until the trial court reimposes the original conviction and sentence.
[1] An order determining a defendant's competency to stand trial is not independently reviewable on appeal until the trial court reimposes the original conviction and sentenc…
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 intelligencePittman appealed the trial court's determination that he was competent to proceed to trial. On remand from a prior appeal, the trial court held a hear…
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 Nunc Pro Tunc Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
DAMOORGIAN, J.
Marcus Pittman (“the defendant”) appeals for a second time the trial court’s determination that he was competent to proceed to trial. In his first appeal, the defendant raised several substantive issues as well as the competency issue. We reversed solely on the competency issue, remanding the case for the trial court to determine nunc pro tunc whether the defendant was competent to proceed at the time of trial. Pittman v. State (Pittman I), 254 So. 3d 494, 497 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). 1
On remand, the trial court held a hearing to determine whether it could make a nunc pro tunc competency determination. After the hearing, the trial court entered an order finding the defendant competent at the time of
The defendant now appeals the trial court’s nunc pro tunc competency determination. An order determining competency is not independently reviewable. See, e.g., Pamphile v. State, 260 So. 3d 1185, 1185–86 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). Accordingly, until the trial court reimposes the original conviction and sentence, this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction to review the trial court’s nunc pro tunc competency determination. See Zieler, 276 So. 3d at 836.
We dismiss the appeal with instructions that the trial court reimpose the original conviction and sentence. The defendant need not be present when the trial court completes the ministerial task of reimposing the sentence. See Naugle v. State, 244 So. 3d 1127, 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
Dismissed.
FORST and ARTAU, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pamphile v. State, 260 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
- Pittman v. State, 254 So. 3d 494 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)