T.M. v. State

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 27, 2017
Docket5D15-4244
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
T.M. v. State, (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

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

Tush-ee Lewis Hunter v. State of Florida
174 So. 3d 1011 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
T.M. v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tm-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.