Ives v. State (231 So. 3d 1290, 2017)

PER CURIAM.

Appellant raises three issues on appeal; only one has merit. We agree that the trial court erred by failing to enter a written order adjudicating appellant competent to proceed following an oral pronouncement of competence. Therefore, we AFFIRM appellant’s convictions, but REMAND for entry of a nunc pro tunc order declaring appellant competent. See Merriell v. State, 169 So.3d 1287, 1288-89 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

KELSEY, WINOKUR, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.