Nunc Pro Tunc Determination

33 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Robert v. Bruce
  483 F.2d 1031· 5th Cir.· 1973-09-06 ·cited 124×
• Krupnick v. United States
  264 F.2d 213· 8th Cir.· 1959-03-05 ·cited 76×
  A court cannot substitute a physician's opinion for a statutorily required psychiatric examination when determining competency to stand trial, but this error does not automatically invalidate the sentence.
• COX v. United States
  473 F.2d 334· 4th Cir.· 1973-01-29 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the Attorney General's decision to prosecute a juvenile as an adult is an executive function not subject to judicial review, and the district court's sentencing implicitly determined the defendant would not benefit from the Federal Youth Corrections Act.
• Favis Clay Martin v. Estelle
  583 F.2d 1373· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-16 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to first determine if a meaningful retrospective competency hearing was practicable and by improperly placing the burden of proof on the state.
• Lewellyng v. United States
  320 F.2d 104· 5th Cir.· 1963-07-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a psychiatric examination based on a finding of bad faith, as the statute mandates such an examination when reasonable cause exists.
• Gunther v. United States
  230 F.2d 222· D.C. Cir.· 1956-02-02 ·cited 19×
  The court held that a new competency hearing is required, and trial counsel cannot be compelled to testify regarding the defendant's competency.
• State v. Williams
  447 So. 2d 356· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-03-08 ·cited 18×
  The State appeals a trial court's decision setting aside Williams' burglary conviction based on alleged incompetency at the time he entered his guilty plea. The court addresses whether a defendant's competency to stand trial can be determined retrospectively in a post-conviction
• Raithel v. State
  226 So. 3d 1028· Fla. 4th DCA· 2017-08-30 ·cited 11×
  Nicholas Paul Raithel was convicted of making a false bomb report after calling 211 while intoxicated. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, finding that the trial court erred by failing to conduct a competency hearing and determination despite questions abou
• Kenner v. United States
  286 F.2d 208· 8th Cir.· 1960-12-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the appellant's motion for a psychiatric examination, but the conviction may stand pending a nunc pro tunc determination of competency.
• Alexander v. State OF Md.
  719 F.2d 1241· 4th Cir.· 1983-10-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the state failed to prove Alexander would have been waived to adult court in 1961, and that his petition was not barred by laches under Habeas Rule 9(a).
• United States v. Nichelson
  550 F.2d 502· 8th Cir.· 1977-03-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a psychiatric examination to determine competency to stand trial.
• Brown v. COX
  467 F.2d 1255· 4th Cir.· 1972-10-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court must conduct a hearing to determine if the juvenile court's waiver of jurisdiction was appropriate, and the conviction should be vacated if it was not.
• Yancy v. State
  280 So. 3d 1112· Fla. 5th DCA· 2019-09-27 ·cited 7×
  A trial court must make an independent determination of a defendant's competency to proceed, even when the parties stipulate and expert evaluations support competency. Merely accepting the parties' stipulation without demonstrating independent review of the expert's report violat
• Volmir Charles v. State
  246 So. 3d 436· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-05-16 ·cited 4×
  Once a trial court orders a competency examination based on reasonable grounds, it must conduct a hearing and enter a written order on the competency issue; failure to do so constitutes fundamental error requiring reversal.
• Saunders v. State
  242 So. 3d 1149· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-04-18 ·cited 3×
  A trial court commits fundamental error when it appoints an expert to evaluate a defendant's competence but fails to hold a competency hearing or make an independent determination of competence. The remedy depends on whether a nunc pro tunc competency determination can be made ba
• Carnley v. State
  403 So. 3d 1094· Fla. 5th DCA· 2025-02-28 ·cited 2×
  Once a defendant's competency is called into question, a trial court must make an independent legal determination of competency, whether written or oral, and failure to do so constitutes reversible fundamental error. The trial court's reliance solely on an expert's written report
• Simmons v. State
  271 So. 3d 997· Fla. 4th DCA· 2019-02-20 ·cited 2×
  Once a trial court orders competency examinations, it must hold a competency hearing and enter a written order on the issue; failure to do so is fundamental error requiring reversal. On remand, the trial court may make a nunc pro tunc competency determination if sufficient expert
• Jammie Don White v. United States
  470 F.2d 727· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the sentencing court erred in denying a § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing when there were sufficient grounds to question the petitioner's competency to plead guilty.
• Davis v. State
  418 So. 3d 851· Fla. 5th DCA· 2025-08-28 ·cited 1×
  When a trial court has reasonable grounds to believe a defendant might not be competent to proceed and appoints an expert to evaluate competence, the court commits fundamental error by failing to make an independent determination of competence.
• Williams v. State
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2022-07-22 ·cited 1×
  When the State confesses error regarding defendant's trial competency, the case must be reversed and remanded for a competency hearing and nunc pro tunc determination of competency.
• Lavinel Zurz v. State
  315 So. 3d 14· Fla. 4th DCA· 2021-03-17 ·cited 1×
  The court affirms convictions but remands for correction of the statute citation from 784.021 to 784.045 for the aggravated battery count and for the trial court to hold a hearing and make a nunc pro tunc written determination of competency, with vacation of judgment and new tria
• Alcazar v. State
  276 So. 3d 962· Fla. 1st DCA· 2019-07-22 ·cited 1×
  When an appellate court issues a mandate with specific instructions, the trial court must follow those instructions and has no discretion to deviate. The trial court violated the appellate mandate by entering a nunc pro tunc competency finding without holding the hearing that was
• Augustus Rose v. State
  248 So. 3d 161· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-06-06 ·cited 1×
  Once a trial court has reasonable grounds to believe a defendant is incompetent and orders an examination, it must hold a competency hearing and enter a written order on the issue before accepting a plea; failure to do so is fundamental error requiring reversal. A defendant may n
• Jakari Webb v. State
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2026-02-06
  A trial court commits fundamental error when it fails to make an independent determination of a defendant's competence to proceed after appointing an expert to evaluate competence, where the record reflects reasonable grounds to believe the defendant might not be competent.
• Diamond v. State
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2022-06-22
  A trial court must conduct a competency hearing when it has reasonable grounds to question a defendant's competency, and failure to do so requires reversal and remand.
• Pittman v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-07-29
  An order determining competency is not independently reviewable on appeal until the trial court reimposes the original conviction and sentence.
• Bruni v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-04-08
  A trial court must make an independent determination of a defendant's competency to proceed and cannot rely solely on the parties' stipulation to an expert report; the record must affirmatively show the court read the report before accepting the stipulation.
• Long v. State
  268 So. 3d 813· Fla. 4th DCA· 2019-05-01
  When a trial court fails to conduct a competency hearing within twenty days of ordering a competency evaluation as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210, remand is required for the trial court to determine whether a nunc pro tunc competency determination is possibl
• Wells v. State
  417 So. 2d 772· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-08-03
  David Wells appealed his convictions for six counts of robbery and related firearm charges, arguing that his trial should have been preceded by a formal judicial determination that he had regained his sanity following prior adjudications of insanity. The Florida appellate court a
• Peterson v. State
  386 So. 2d 576· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-07-09
  The court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the appellant's mental competency to stand trial on probation violation charges, as the trial court had reasonable grounds to question her competency but failed to hold such a hearing.
• United States v. Nichelson
  562 F.2d 530· 8th Cir.· 1977-09-12
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding the defendant mentally competent to stand trial and that his conviction must stand.
• Neal v. United States
  426 F.2d 1219· D.C. Cir.· 1970-03-16
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding that the appellant's Fifth Amendment contentions were resolved adversely by Supreme Court precedent and that the competency issue could be raised post-conviction.