SMITH
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A trial court's oral finding of competency to proceed must be memorialized in a written order, which may be entered nunc pro tunc to the date of the oral finding.
[1] A trial court's oral finding that a defendant is competent to proceed must be memorialized in a written order, which may be entered nunc pro tunc to the date of the oral…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith was previously deemed incompetent to proceed, but his competency was later restored. The trial court ordered a new competency evaluation, and at…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Restoration Of Competency cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
ABDUL J. SMITH,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 2D2024-2811
February 6, 2026
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; G. Gregory Green, Judge.
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Kevin Briggs, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
MORRIS, Judge.
In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), the record reflects that prior to trial, Smith was evaluated for competency.1 After the expert evaluation was performed, the trial court
2
conducted a competency hearing. At the hearing, both parties stipulated to the findings in the competency report, and the trial court ultimately concluded that based on the stipulations, it would rely on the findings and adjudicate Smith to be competent to proceed. However, the trial court did not memorialize its oral finding of competency in a written order. While we affirm the judgment and sentences under review, we remand for entry of a written order finding Smith competent, nunc pro tunc to the date of the trial court's oral finding of competency. See Hampton v. State, 988 So. 2d 103, 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Bien Aime v. State, 292 So. 3d 1267, 1267-68 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020).
Affirmed with directions.
ATKINSON and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Hampton v. State, 988 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)