JOSEPH SWIFT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Nunc Pro Tunc Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Joseph Swift appeals the trial court’s ruling that he was competent to stand trial and separately contends that the trial court did not conduct a reasonably thorough Faretta examination. We affirm. Woodbury v. State, 320 So. 3d 631, 644 (Fla. 2021) (“When a defendant claims a trial court failed to order a competency hearing, either sua sponte or on request from a party, we will uphold the court's determination absent an abuse of discretion.”); Barnes v. State, 124 So. 3d 904, 913 (Fla. 2013) (holding that to be found incompetent, a defendant must demonstrate “a present inability to assist counsel or understand the charges”). However, because the trial court did not enter a written order memorializing its May 22, 2019 on-the-record finding that Mr. Swift was competent, as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(b), we remand to the trial court to enter an order nunc pro tunc to that date.
Affirmed, remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Barnes v. State, 124 So. 3d 904 (Fla. 2013)
- Woodbury v. State, 320 So. 3d 631 (Fla. 2021)