Holland v. State
| Decision Date | 05 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D14–2881.,2D14–2881. |
| Citation | 185 So.3d 636 |
| Parties | Cody Shane HOLLAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Matthew D. Bernstein, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jason M. Miller, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Cody Shane Holland appeals his conviction and sentence for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling. We affirm the conviction and sentence. Because the trial court made an oral determination that Holland was competent but failed to render a written order to that effect we must remand the case to the trial court for entry of a nunc pro tunc order finding Holland competent to stand trial.
Holland argues that he was deprived of due process because the trial court failed to make an independent determination that Holland was competent to proceed with trial and instead allowed counsel to stipulate to Holland's competency. We disagree. First, Holland was never determined to be incompetent. The record reflects that after counsel filed a suggestion of incompetency as to Holland, the. trial court appointed two experts who each submitted written reports indicating Holland was competent to proceed. At Holland's competency hearing, with Holland present, the court considered the experts' reports, the statements of defense counsel, and Holland's demeanor. See Dougherty v. State, 149 So.3d 672, 678 (Fla.2014) (). The court then made an oral determination that it was "adopt[ing] the findings that both the doctors indicate he's competent, he understands the proceedings, [and] he understands his lawyer...." See Fowler v. State, 255 So.2d 513, 515 (Fla.1971) ().
Although defense counsel indicated at the close of the competency hearing that he would prepare a written order memorializing the trial court's oral determination, the record contains no such order. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(b)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gordon v. State
...and, thus, not reviewable on appeal, a review of the case law suggests that this argument is without merit. See Holland v. State , 185 So.3d 636, 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). Here, the trial court made an oral finding that defendant was competent to proceed, but failed to render a written order ......
-
Sallee v. State
...trial court was able to observe his demeanor. We cannot conclude that Mr. Sallee was deprived of due process. See Holland v. State, 185 So.3d 636, 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (concluding that appellant was not deprived of due process where "[a]t Holland's competency hearing, with Holland present......
-
Charles v. State
...competent after considering the experts' reports, the statements of defense counsel, and the defendant's demeanor. Holland v. State , 185 So.3d 636, 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).By contrast, a trial court did not properly decide the issue of competency where the parties stipulated to the defendan......
-
Burney v. State
...abides by due process guarantees, then it should do so and enter a corresponding written order. Id. at 641 ; accord Holland v. State, 185 So.3d 636, 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ("Accordingly, we remand the case to the trial court for entry of a nunc pro tunc order finding Holland competent to st......