Opinion
5D21-2969
08-19-2022
RONALD DUBUC, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
Terry P. Roberts, of Law Office of Terry P. Roberts, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah A. Chance, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Putnam County LT Case No. 2018-001256-CF, Howard O. McGillin, Jr., Judge.
Terry P. Roberts, of Law Office of Terry P. Roberts, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah A. Chance, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
In this Anders appeal, we affirm the judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court on the sole count following Appellant's nolo contendere plea to a "time served" sentence. However, we remand with directions that an amended judgment be entered to correct two clerical errors.
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
First, the judgment reflects that it is a "VOP" judgment. This was not a VOP case, so the reference to VOP is to be deleted. Second, the judgment should reflect the correct statutory citation of section 943.0435(3)(a), Florida Statutes.
VOP is short for violation of probation.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.
LAMBERT, CJ, and EDWARDS, J, concur EISNAUGLE, J, concurs in part, dissents in part, with opinion.
EISNAUGLE, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree that the judgment and sentence must be affirmed. However, I dissent from the majority's remand for correction of a scrivener's error in the title of the judgment. Our Anders review is limited to reversible error that appears on the face of the record. See State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321, 322-23 (Fla. 1987) (holding that once appointed counsel files an Anders brief, an appellate court has the duty to independently review the entire record "to the extent necessary to discover any errors apparent on the face of the record" and, if a potential reversible error is found, to direct that briefs be submitted prior to rendering decision). Considering the substance of the judgment, this scrivener's error, which appears only in the title, is harmless to Appellant and is therefore outside of the scope of our Anders review. See, e.g., United States v. Wilmoth, 668 Fed.Appx. 455, 457 (4th Cir. 2016) ("In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and found no meritorious issues for appeal, other than the risk enhancement issue, which we conclude fails harmless error review."); United States v. Hill, 358 Fed.Appx. 729, 731 (7th Cir. 2010) (applying harmless error analysis to potential error in Anders case).