Joseph Daniel Flowers v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Joseph Daniel Flowers v. State of Florida

143 So. 3d 459

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 30, 2014

Docket1D12-6064

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 143 So. 3d 459 (Joseph Daniel Flowers v. State of Florida) 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

Joseph Daniel Flowers v. State of Florida, 143 So. 3d 459 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Daniel Flowers appeals the final judgment after a jury found him guilty of seven charges. We affirm, but remand this case to the trial court to enter a written order of competency.

Flowers correctly argues that the trial court must enter a written order finding the defendant competent. See Fla. R. Crim.P. 3.212(b). However, as noted by this court in White v. State, 548 So.2d 765, 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), where a 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 affirm the judgment and to remand the case to the trial court for entry of a nunc pro tunc order finding the defendant competent to stand trial.

We disagree with Flowers’s assertion that the court was required to conduct a second competency proceeding. Nothing was presented to the trial court which could raise a bona fide and reasonable doubt as to his competency at the time of his October 2013 trial or November 2013 sentencing hearing. See Pericola v. State, 499 So.2d 864, 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), pet. rev. denied, 509 So.2d 1118 (Fla.1987).

We affirm the final judgment, but remand this case to the trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc order finding Flowers competent to stand trial.

SWANSON and MAKAR, JJ„ and SJOSTRUM, JONATHAN, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Daniel Flowers appeals the final judgment after a jury found him guilty of seven charges. We affirm, but remand this case to the trial court to enter a written order of competency.

Flowers correctly argues that the trial court must enter a written order finding the defendant competent. See Fla. R. Crim.P. 3.212(b). However, as noted by this court in White v. State, 548 So.2d 765, 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), where a 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 affirm the judgment and to remand the case to the trial court for entry of a nunc pro tunc order finding the defendant competent to stand trial.

We disagree with Flowers’s assertion that the court was required to conduct a second competency proceeding. Nothing was presented to the trial court which could raise a bona fide and reasonable doubt as to his competency at the time of his October 2013 trial or November 2013 sentencing hearing. See Pericola v. State, 499 So.2d 864, 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), pet. rev. denied, 509 So.2d 1118 (Fla.1987).

We affirm the final judgment, but remand this case to the trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc order finding Flowers competent to stand trial.

SWANSON and MAKAR, JJ„ and SJOSTRUM, JONATHAN, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 So. 3d 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-daniel-flowers-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack