Laylor v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Laylor v. State

197 So. 3d 650, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12694, 41 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1942

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 22, 2016

DocketNos. 1D15-2450, 1D15-2451

StatusPublished

This text of 197 So. 3d 650 (Laylor 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

Laylor v. State, 197 So. 3d 650, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12694, 41 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1942 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

WOLF, J.

Appellant alleges the trial court erred by failing to enter a written order declaring appellant competent to stand trial even though the court orally declared him competent. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(c)(7) requires the trial court to enter a written order finding a defendant competent to proceed if that defendant has previously been declared incompetent. See White v. State, 548 So.2d 765, 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). We, therefore, agree that the trial court erred in failing to enter such a written order declaring appellant competent after his period of incompetence. We AFFIRM appellant’s judgment and sentence but REMAND for the trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc order declaring appellant competent. See Hunt[651]*651er v. State, 174 So.3d 1011, 1014-15 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

LEWIS and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

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

WOLF, J.

Appellant alleges the trial court erred by failing to enter a written order declaring appellant competent to stand trial even though the court orally declared him competent. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(c)(7) requires the trial court to enter a written order finding a defendant competent to proceed if that defendant has previously been declared incompetent. See White v. State, 548 So.2d 765, 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). We, therefore, agree that the trial court erred in failing to enter such a written order declaring appellant competent after his period of incompetence. We AFFIRM appellant’s judgment and sentence but REMAND for the trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc order declaring appellant competent. See Hunt[651]*651er v. State, 174 So.3d 1011, 1014-15 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

LEWIS and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 So. 3d 650, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12694, 41 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laylor-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack