Oats v. State

253 So. 3d 1265
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 3, 2018·No. No. 1D15-5169·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Daunte Oats raises two issues on appeal: whether the trial court failed to conduct a competency hearing and whether Florida's 10-20-Life statute is unconstitutional as applied to juveniles. We affirm as to the second issue, but reverse and remand as to the first because it appears no competency hearing occurred. As the State concedes, a determination was made that reasonable grounds existed that Oats was not competent to proceed, but that no competency hearing occurred. We therefore reverse *1266and remand for the trial court to conduct a nunc pro tunc competency evaluation; if one cannot be done, Oats is entitled to a new trial. See, e.g. , Brooks v. State , 180 So.3d 1094, 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

Makar, Winokur, and Winsor, JJ., concur.

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

Oats v. State, 253 So. 3d 1265 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

253 So. 3d 1265 (Oats v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Roger N. Rosier v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019