JONES v. STATE (2024)

Romance Lee Jones appeals his conviction and sentence, arguing the circuit court erred because the record does not show the court held a competency hearing after granting defense counsel's motion for a competency evaluation.¹ The State concedes the court erred and suggests we remand for a nunc pro tunc evaluation of competency if such a determination is possible. We agree.

On remand, if the court is able to “make a nunc pro tunc finding as to [A]ppellant's competency based upon ․ evaluations performed contemporaneous with trial and without relying solely on a cold record, and can do so in a manner which abides by due process guarantees, then it should do so and enter a corresponding written order.” Baker v. State, 221 So. 3d 637, 641 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (citations omitted). But “if the court finds, for any reason, that an evaluation of [A]ppellant's competency at the time of trial cannot proceed in a way that ensures [A]ppellant's due process rights, then the court should adjudicate h[is] current competency and, if [ ]he is competent, conduct a new trial on all counts.” Id. at 641−42 (citation omitted).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We affirm without comment the other issue raised on appeal.

Per Curiam.

May, Damoorgian and Kuntz, JJ., concur.