ISOM v. STATE (2020)

David E. Isom appeals the judgment and sentence after he pled nolo contendere to introducing contraband into a jail. He argues that the trial court erred in failing to hold a competency hearing, citing comments the trial court made during a bench conference. Because Isom failed to file a motion to withdraw his plea based on the competency issue, and because of this Court's controlling precedent, we are without jurisdiction to consider that matter. See Hammonds v. State, 275 So. 3d 797 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (citing Hicks v. State, 915 So. 2d 740, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Murphy v. State, 181 So. 3d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Campos-Carriera v. State, 106 So. 3d 483 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); Vestal v. State, 50 So. 3d 733, 735 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Bailey v. State, 21 So. 3d 147, 150 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)). But see Dortch v. State, 242 So. 3d 431, 433 (Fla. 4th DCA) (receding from position that defendant who may be incompetent to proceed must file motion to withdraw plea to preserve issue of his competency for appellate review), review granted, Case No. SC18-681, 2018 WL 3635017 (Fla. July 11, 2018). Therefore, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice to Isom's right to seek appropriate and timely postconviction relief below.

DISMISSED.

SASSO, J.

LAMBERT and TRAVER, JJ., concur.