Pavilus v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pavilus v. State

240 So. 3d 892

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 13, 2018

DocketCase No. 5D16–4401

StatusPublished

This text of 240 So. 3d 892 (Pavilus 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

Pavilus v. State, 240 So. 3d 892 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Carlos Pavilus (the defendant) appeals his judgment and sentence, entered by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of lewd or lascivious molestation. He argues that the trial court erred by 1) conducting an insufficient competency hearing; 2) failing to make an independent competency determination; and 3) failing to enter a written order on competency. The record refutes the defendant's arguments that the trial court conducted an insufficient competency hearing and failed to make an independent determination of his competency. See Davis v. State, 239 So.3d 202 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). Nevertheless, because the trial court failed to enter a written order reflecting its oral finding of competency announced at the hearing, we remand for the entry of a written order, nunc pro tunc to the date when the oral ruling was made. See Wriden v. State, 238 So.3d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). In all other respects, we affirm.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions.

SAWAYA, PALMER, and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Carlos Pavilus (the defendant) appeals his judgment and sentence, entered by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of lewd or lascivious molestation. He argues that the trial court erred by 1) conducting an insufficient competency hearing; 2) failing to make an independent competency determination; and 3) failing to enter a written order on competency. The record refutes the defendant's arguments that the trial court conducted an insufficient competency hearing and failed to make an independent determination of his competency. See Davis v. State, 239 So.3d 202 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). Nevertheless, because the trial court failed to enter a written order reflecting its oral finding of competency announced at the hearing, we remand for the entry of a written order, nunc pro tunc to the date when the oral ruling was made. See Wriden v. State, 238 So.3d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). In all other respects, we affirm.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions.

SAWAYA, PALMER, and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 So. 3d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pavilus-v-state-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack