GOODE v. STATE (2020)

Clifford Goode faced charges in four separate cases and filed a motion to determine competency in each case. Following an evaluation, the examining physician opined that Goode was competent. The trial court held a competency hearing and orally pronounced that Goode was competent to proceed.

Goode subsequently entered an open plea to all charges, in which the State agreed to a sentence cap of fifty-eight months. At the sentencing hearing, Goode requested, over the State's objection, a downward departure sentence. The trial court rejected Goode's request and imposed concurrent, fifty-eight-month sentences on all counts.

Goode appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in: (1) failing to impose a downward departure sentence, and (2) failing to enter a written competency order. We find no abuse of discretion related to the trial court's rejection of Goode's request for a downward departure sentence. However, we agree with Goode that the trial court was required to enter a written competency order. Fla. R. Crim. Pro. 3.212(b) (“If the court finds the defendant competent to proceed, the court shall enter its order so finding and shall proceed.”).

Therefore, we affirm Goode's judgment and sentence but remand for entry of a nunc pro tunc written competency order to the date that the trial court made its oral finding of competency. See Smith v. State, 967 So. 2d 1002, 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions.

COHEN, J.

WALLIS and TRAVER, JJ., concur.