Case Name: Daunte OATS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2018-10-03
Citations: 253 So. 3d 1265
Docket Number: No. 1D15-5169
Parties: Daunte OATS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 253
Pages: 1265–1266

Head Matter:
Daunte OATS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D15-5169
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
October 3, 2018
Candice Kaye Brower, Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, Gainesville, and Michael Jerome Titus, Assistant Conflict Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Steven Edward Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Daunte Oats raises two issues on appeal: whether the trial court failed to conduct a competency hearing and whether Florida's 10-20-Life statute is unconstitutional as applied to juveniles. We affirm as to the second issue, but reverse and remand as to the first because it appears no competency hearing occurred. As the State concedes, a determination was made that reasonable grounds existed that Oats was not competent to proceed, but that no competency hearing occurred. We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct a nunc pro tunc competency evaluation; if one cannot be done, Oats is entitled to a new trial. See, e.g. , Brooks v. State , 180 So.3d 1094, 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).
Makar, Winokur, and Winsor, JJ., concur.