SMITH v. STATE (2026)

In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), the record reflects that prior to trial, Smith was evaluated for competency.¹ After the expert evaluation was performed, the trial court conducted a competency hearing. At the hearing, both parties stipulated to the findings in the competency report, and the trial court ultimately concluded that based on the stipulations, it would rely on the findings and adjudicate Smith to be competent to proceed. However, the trial court did not memorialize its oral finding of competency in a written order. While we affirm the judgment and sentences under review, we remand for entry of a written order finding Smith competent, nunc pro tunc to the date of the trial court's oral finding of competency. See Hampton v. State, 988 So. 2d 103, 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Bien Aime v. State, 292 So. 3d 1267, 1267-68 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020).

Affirmed with directions.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Smith had previously been deemed incompetent to proceed, but the trial court was subsequently notified that his competency had been restored. This led the trial court to order a new expert evaluation to determine Smith's competency to proceed.

MORRIS, Judge.

ATKINSON and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.