REGINO MENDOZA
v.
THE 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.
Regino Mendoza appeals his conviction and sentence for robbery with a firearm, challenging the trial court's failure to enter a written competency order prior to sentencing. Although the trial court orally found Mendoza competent to proceed, it did not memorialize this finding in writing as required by Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court affirms the conviction but remands for entry of a nunc pro tunc written competency order.
The conviction is affirmed because the competency hearing transcript reflects the trial court's oral finding that Mendoza was competent to proceed. However, the case is remanded for the trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc written competency order to comply with procedural requirements, as this is a ministerial act that does not require the defendant's presence.
[1] A trial court's oral pronouncement of a defendant's competency to proceed, if reflected in the transcript, is substantively sufficient to support a conviction, but Florid…
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 intelligenceRegino Mendoza was convicted of robbery with a firearm in Miami-Dade County. Prior to sentencing, the trial court conducted a competency hearing and m…
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 Independent Determination Of Competency cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed January 15, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D23-0753 Lower Tribunal No. F20-11173A ________________
Regino Mendoza,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marisa Tinkler Mendez, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Deborah Prager, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kayla Heather McNab, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before SCALES, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Regino Mendoza appeals his conviction and sentence for robbery with a firearm, claiming that the trial court failed to conduct a proper competency hearing prior to sentencing him. Specifically, Mendoza claims that the trial court failed to make an independent determination that Mendoza was competent to proceed, and to enter a written competency order. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.212(b) (“If the court finds the defendant competent to proceed, the court must enter its order so finding and proceed.”). We affirm because the transcript of the competency hearing reflects that the trial court found Mendoza competent to proceed to sentencing. Because, though, it is undisputed that the trial court failed to enter a written order of competency, we remand for the trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc order reflecting its oral pronouncement regarding Mendoza’s competency. See Moreno v. State, 232 So. 3d 1133, 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“Because the parties agree the trial court did not memorialize its competency finding with a written order as required by the rules of criminal procedure, . . . we remand to the trial court for the sole purpose of entering a written order reflecting its oral pronouncement regarding Moreno’s competency. Because this is a ministerial act, Moreno need not be present.”).
Affirmed; remanded with directions.