Oats v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Oats v. State

253 So. 3d 1265

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 3, 2018

DocketNo. 1D15-5169

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 253 So. 3d 1265 (Oats 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 So. 3d 1265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oats-v-state-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack