RAMSEY v. STATE (2021)

Michael Ramsey appeals his conviction and sentence for attempted armed robbery. Ramsey asserts, and the State concedes, the trial court committed fundamental error by failing to conduct a competency hearing and by failing to enter a final order determining he was competent. Ramsey additionally argues, and the State further concedes, the trial court erred in denying his Motion to Correct Sentencing Error for imposing unpronounced discretionary fines. Because the trial court erred on both issues, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

As to the first issue raised, once a trial court has reasonable grounds to question a defendant's competency, it must hold a hearing. Sheheane v. State, 228 So. 3d 1178, 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (citing Zern v. State, 191 So. 3d 962, 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)). “Failure to hold a competency hearing and enter a written order is fundamental error and requires reversal.” Anderson v. State, 303 So. 3d 288, 288 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (citing Dortch v. State, 242 So. 3d 431, 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), review granted, State v. Dortch, No. SC18-681, 2018 WL 3635017 (Fla. July 11, 2018)).

Here, the trial court granted Ramsey's motion for a competency evaluation and appointed an expert to conduct that evaluation, but it never conducted a hearing, nor did it make a final determination as to his competency. Because the trial court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing and issue a written order on competency, we reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct a nunc pro tunc evaluation of Ramsey's competency or conduct a new trial. See Anderson, 303 So. 3d at 288 (citing Brooks v. State, 180 So. 3d 1094, 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)).

As to the second issue, because the trial court was tasked with individually pronouncing each discretionary fine to be imposed, regardless of any waiver by Ramsey to a reading of the statutory authority, we agree the trial court's imposition of fines must be reversed. See Johnson v. State, 293 So. 3d 582, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (holding that a defendant's waiver of a reading of the statutory authority for discretionary fines did not absolve a trial court of its responsibility to individually pronounce the fines (citing Nix v. State, 84 So. 3d 424, 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012))).

Reversed and Remanded.

Per Curiam.

Rowe, Bilbrey, and Nordby, JJ., concur.