SWIFT v. STATE (2022)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Joseph SWIFT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D20-1160

Decided: April 06, 2022

Before LOGUE, SCALES, and GORDO, JJ.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Joseph Swift appeals the trial court's ruling that he was competent to stand trial and separately contends that the trial court did not conduct a reasonably thorough Faretta examination. We affirm. Woodbury v. State, 320 So. 3d 631, 644 (Fla. 2021) (“When a defendant claims a trial court failed to order a competency hearing, either sua sponte or on request from a party, we will uphold the court's determination absent an abuse of discretion.”); Barnes v. State, 124 So. 3d 904, 913 (Fla. 2013) (holding that to be found incompetent, a defendant must demonstrate “a present inability to assist counsel or understand the charges”). However, because the trial court did not enter a written order memorializing its May 22, 2019 on-the-record finding that Mr. Swift was competent, as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(b), we remand to the trial court to enter an order nunc pro tunc to that date.

Affirmed, remanded with instructions.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network