Court Opinion

ID: 9907403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 15:03:08.59895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:13.345543
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                       Opinion filed December 6, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-1175
                      Lower Tribunal No. F18-12976
                          ________________

                               David Farmer,
                                 Appellant,

                                     vs.

                           The State of Florida,
                                Appellee.

      An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marisa
Tinkler Mendez, Judge.

      Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Nicholas A. Lynch, Assistant
Public Defender, for appellant.

    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and SCALES, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
        Appellant David Farmer was convicted of one count of aggravated

battery with great bodily harm 1 for a 2018 stabbing of a neighbor, and

received a sentence of fifteen years in prison, three years of probation and

two years of community control. Three months earlier, on February 1, 2022,

a predecessor trial judge, without objection from Farmer’s counsel, held a

status conference at which it appears Farmer was not present. This hearing

was held regarding whether a competency examination (ordered earlier by

the trial court) had been performed on Farmer by Dr. Arnise Johnson, and

whether a written evaluation report had been filed with the trial court. Dr.

Johnson had completed the examination, and her six-page evaluation report

was provided to the trial court and the parties. As set forth in her report, Dr.

Johnson concluded that Farmer was competent to proceed. 2 The parties

stipulated that, had Dr. Johnson been called to testify at a competency

hearing, she would have testified consistently with her written report, and

that such testimony would be admissible.

1
    See § 784.045(1)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2018).
2
  It should be noted that this was a “re-examination” as the trial court had
previously appointed two experts to evaluate Farmer on the issue of his
competency to proceed, and both of those doctors, following evaluations,
concluded that Farmer was competent to proceed.

                                        2
      Thereafter, the trial court announced its ruling: “So, at this time, based

on my independent evaluation and the stipulation of the lawyers that Dr.

Johnson will testify consistent with her report and the testimony would be

admissible, I find that Mr. Farmer is competent to proceed at this time.” The

trial court, however, never entered a written order reflecting its oral

pronouncement.

      Farmer’s appeal to this Court does not directly address his conviction

and sentence. Instead, Farmer maintains that the competency hearing

suffered from two defects: (i) Farmer did not attend the February 1, 2022

hearing at which the trial court found Farmer competent; and (ii) the trial court

erred by not entering a written order finding Farmer competent. See

Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672, 678 (Fla. 2014) (“[I]f a trial court finds

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

finding.”). Consequently, Farmer seeks a remand of this case with

instructions to the trial court to make a nunc pro tunc competency

determination. See Washington v. State, 355 So. 3d 482, 485-86 (Fla. 2d

DCA 2023).

      The State concedes that remand is necessary because the trial court

did not enter a written competency order, but also asserts that our remand

instruction should be limited to instructing the trial court to enter a nunc pro

                                       3
tunc written order reflecting its February 1, 2022 competency finding. The

State argues that, because Farmer’s absence from the February 1, 2022

hearing was not objected to, any objection relating to Farmer’s absence is

unpreserved. See Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562, 568 (Fla. 2008) (“Errors

that have not been preserved by contemporaneous objection can be

considered on direct appeal only if the error is fundamental.”); Charles v.

State, 258 So. 3d 549, 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (recognizing, pursuant to law

well settled in Florida, that, to preserve an issue for appellate review, the

party must raise a specific legal ground by timely, contemporaneous

objection).

      We agree with the State that, under the circumstances presented in

this case, no fundamental error resulted from Farmer’s absence from the

February 1, 2022 hearing; any error resulting from Farmer not attending this

hearing is unpreserved or, assuming there was error, any such error was

harmless. Thus, we remand with instructions for the trial court to enter a

written competency order consistent with its findings at the February 1, 2022

hearing.

      Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

                                     4