BIEN AIME v. STATE (2020)

The record in this Anders appeal reflects that at the pertinent time prior to sentencing, Appellant was evaluated for competency and found competent; the expert’s evaluation was provided to the trial court; the trial court reviewed it and addressed it at a hearing, announcing that he found Appellant was competent; and counsel for both sides agreed that Appellant was competent. In addition, the record reflects that the trial court had interacted with and observed Appellant in earlier proceedings as well as at the hearing addressing competency. The procedure utilized here was proper. See Merriell v. State, 169 So. 3d 1287, 1288–89 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (holding that live testimony is unnecessary and trial court may determine competency on basis of written report).

The record also reflects, however, that the trial court did not memorialize the oral ruling in a written order, as was required. Id. at 1289 (requiring court to enter nunc pro tunc order of competency following hearing at which court orally found defendant competent). We affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence, but remand for entry of a written order finding Appellant competent, nunc pro tunc to the date of the trial court’s oral pronouncement of competency.

Affirmed and Remanded.

Per Curiam.

Kelsey, Jay, and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.