Michael E. Ramsey v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledApril 12, 2021
Docket1D20-0903
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D20-903
_____________________________
MICHAEL E. RAMSEY,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.
J. Lee Marsh, Judge.
April 12, 2021
PER CURIAM.
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.
ROWE, BILBREY, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
2
Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, Megan Lynne Long, Assistant
Public Defender, and David Alan Henson, Assistant Public
Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Benjamin Louis Hoffman,
Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
3