
    R.C., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Nos. 4D13-341, 4D13-508, 4D13-509, 4D13-1466.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Feb. 11, 2015.
    Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ellen Griffin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Monique Rolla, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for ap-pellee.
   PER CURIAM.

A juvenile appeals an order adjudicating him delinquent after his plea of no contest to multiple charges. Although not requested at the plea or disposition hearing, a subsequent order recites that appellant had preserved the right to appeal the prior order finding him competent to proceed in all of his cases. It does not state that the order was dispositive. Indeed, an order finding a defendant competent to proceed is not a dispositive order. See Fuller v. State, 748 .So.2d 292, 294 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (an issue is dispositive only when, regardless of the outcome of the appeal, there will be no trial; an order determining defendant competent has no such effect, as trial proceeds). In Burns v. State, 884 So.2d 1010, 1012-13 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), we explained that a competency issue relates to the voluntary and intelligent nature of a plea, which is among the limited issues which may be appealed from a plea, but not without moving to withdraw the plea first. We have applied this preservation rule to juvenile proceedings in P.R.T. v. State, 920 So.2d 708, 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) citing State v. T.G., 800 So.2d 204, 210 (Fla.2001) (“[JJuveniles pleading guilty ... may directly appeal an involuntary plea only if it is preserved by a motion to withdraw plea in the trial court.”). As appellant failed to file a motion to withdraw his plea, he has not preserved the issue for review.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.  