T.M. v. State
This text of T.M. v. State (T.M. 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.
Opinion
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
T.M., A CHILD,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D15-4244
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed March 31, 2017
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Putnam County, Scott C. Dupont, Judge.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Susan A. Fagan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
T.M. appeals his adjudication of delinquency after the trial court found that he
committed felony cruelty to animals. T.M. raises two issues on appeal, contending that
the trial court erred in: 1) denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that
T.M. did not demonstrate an intent to harm the dog; and 2) failing to enter an order finding him competent to proceed to an adjudicatory hearing. As to the first issue, we affirm
without further discussion.
As to the second issue, the trial court had previously found that T.M. was
incompetent to proceed to an adjudicatory hearing. On October 2, 2015, the trial court
held a subsequent hearing and orally found that T.M. was competent to proceed.
However, as the State concedes, the record of this appeal does not contain a written
order with this finding entered following the hearing. See Hunter v. State, 174 So. 3d
1011, 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“[T]he record decidedly lacks a written order from the
trial court adjudicating Hunter competent for trial, as required by [Florida Rule of Criminal
Procedure] 3.212(c)(7) . . . we simply remand to the trial court to enter the needed written
adjudication nunc pro tunc.”). Therefore, we remand with instructions for the trial court to
enter an order, nunc pro tunc, finding T.M. competent to proceed to an adjudicatory
hearing.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions.
SAWAYA, PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
T.M. v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tm-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.