Court Opinion

ID: 9411285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 15:04:53.383495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:05.933061
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                          Opinion filed July 26, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-549
               Lower Tribunal Nos. F11-32407, F11-32408
                          ________________

                            Eric J. Graveran,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                         The State of Florida,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Cristina
Miranda, Judge.

      Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Shannon Hemmendinger,
Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.

Before SCALES, HENDON and GORDO, JJ.

     HENDON, J.
     Eric J. Graveran (“Defendant”) appeals from a final order of

revocation of probation and an order imposing sentence. We reverse and

remand for further proceedings.

     The trial court’s failure to enter a written finding of competency

warrants reversal. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(b) provides

that the “court shall first consider the issue of the defendant's competency

to proceed. If the court finds the defendant competent to proceed, the court

shall enter its order so finding and shall proceed.” (emphasis added);

Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672, 678 (Fla. 2014) (holding if a trial court

finds that a defendant is competent to proceed, it must enter a written order

so finding, and in which case the State conceded that entry of an order

under the rule refers to entry of a written order as opposed to an oral

pronouncement.); Hendrix v. State, 228 So. 3d 674, 676 (Fla. 1st DCA

2017) (holding the trial court is required to make an independent

determination that the defendant is competent to proceed, and cannot rely

on a stipulation of the defendant or his counsel that defendant is competent

to proceed).

     Accordingly, we remand for a retroactive determination of the

Defendant’s competency. If the trial court finds that the Defendant was

competent at the time of the probation violation hearing, it shall enter a

                                     2
nunc pro tunc written order reflecting its oral pronouncement regarding

Defendant's competency. Mullens v. State, 197 So. 3d 16, 37 (Fla. 2016)

(“The district courts of this state have interpreted this language [Fla. R.

Crim. P. 3.212(b)] to require a written order of competency; when a trial

court has issued only an oral finding of competency, the district courts have

typically remanded for a nunc pro tunc written order of competency.”);

Moreno v. State, 232 So. 3d 1133, 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (remanding for

the sole purpose of entering a written order reflecting its oral

pronouncement regarding Moreno's competency).

     If trial court finds that the Defendant was incompetent or that a

retrospective determination is not possible in this case, the court shall hold

a new probation violation hearing, as long as the Defendant is and remains

competent on remand. We also instruct the trial court to enter a written

order of revocation of probation, assuming the court can make a retroactive

competency determination. As the entry of such an order is a ministerial

act, Defendant does not need to be present. Moreno, 232 So 3d at 1138.

     Reversed and remanded with directions.

                                      3