Dickey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dickey v. State

224 So. 3d 862, 2017 WL 3481021, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11677

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 15, 2017

DocketCASE NO. 1D14-5773

StatusPublished

This text of 224 So. 3d 862 (Dickey v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dickey v. State, 224 So. 3d 862, 2017 WL 3481021, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11677 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment and sentence are affirmed, except that the trial court failed to enter a written order of competency under rule 3.212(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires a written order regardless of any prior finding of incompetence. Accordingly, we remand with di[863]*863rections for the trial court to enter a written order memorializing its competency determination. ' See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.212(b) (“If the court finds the defendant competent to proceed, the court shall enter its order so finding and shall proceed.”); see also Hunter v. State, 174 So.3d 1011, 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (“Nevertheless, the record decidedly lacks a written order from the trial court adjudicating Hunter competent for trial, as required by rule 3.212(c)(7). As we did in Martinez, we simply remand to the trial court to enter the needed written adjudication nunc pro tunc.”); Merriell v. State, 169 So.3d 1287, 1289 (“It is undisputed, however,: that the trial court failed to enter a written order of competency. Similar to our recent opinion in [Hunter], we remand for the trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc order adjudicating Appellant competent to proceed.”).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.

ROBERTS, ROWE, and MAKAR, JJ.; CONCUR.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The judgment and sentence are affirmed, except that the trial court failed to enter a written order of competency under rule 3.212(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires a written order regardless of any prior finding of incompetence. Accordingly, we remand with di[863]*863rections for the trial court to enter a written order memorializing its competency determination. ' See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.212(b) (“If the court finds the defendant competent to proceed, the court shall enter its order so finding and shall proceed.”); see also Hunter v. State, 174 So.3d 1011, 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (“Nevertheless, the record decidedly lacks a written order from the trial court adjudicating Hunter competent for trial, as required by rule 3.212(c)(7). As we did in Martinez, we simply remand to the trial court to enter the needed written adjudication nunc pro tunc.”); Merriell v. State, 169 So.3d 1287, 1289 (“It is undisputed, however,: that the trial court failed to enter a written order of competency. Similar to our recent opinion in [Hunter], we remand for the trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc order adjudicating Appellant competent to proceed.”).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.

ROBERTS, ROWE, and MAKAR, JJ.; CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 So. 3d 862, 2017 WL 3481021, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dickey-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack