MENDOZA v. STATE (2025)

Regino Mendoza appeals his conviction and sentence for robbery with a firearm, claiming that the trial court failed to conduct a proper competency hearing prior to sentencing him. Specifically, Mendoza claims that the trial court failed to make an independent determination that Mendoza was competent to proceed, and to enter a written competency order. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.212(b) (“If the court finds the defendant competent to proceed, the court must enter its order so finding and proceed.”). We affirm because the transcript of the competency hearing reflects that the trial court found Mendoza competent to proceed to sentencing. Because, though, it is undisputed that the trial court failed to enter a written order of competency, we remand for the trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc order reflecting its oral pronouncement regarding Mendoza's competency. See Moreno v. State, 232 So. 3d 1133, 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“Because the parties agree the trial court did not memorialize its competency finding with a written order as required by the rules of criminal procedure, ․ we remand to the trial court for the sole purpose of entering a written order reflecting its oral pronouncement regarding Moreno's competency. Because this is a ministerial act, Moreno need not be present.”).

Affirmed; remanded with directions.

PER CURIAM.