From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fonseca v. State

Florida Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Sep 16, 2022
347 So. 3d 528 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)

Opinion

Case No. 5D21-2479

09-16-2022

Donna Marie FONSECA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Kathryn Rollison Radtke, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.


Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Kathryn Rollison Radtke, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders appeal, we affirm Fonseca's judgment and sentence. Fonseca had filed a timely motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) to correct a sentence, which imposed a sentence of three years in prison for two counts in 2021-CF-988-A. That was in fact the sentence orally announced by the court following acceptance of the plea. However, count 2 of that information was a misdemeanor punishable by only up to one year in the county jail.

A hearing was held on Fonseca's motion, and the trial court orally granted that motion. However, it appears that no amended judgment and sentence was entered. Therefore, as requested by Fonseca in her second motion to correct sentencing error, we remand for the trial court to enter a formal amended written judgment and sentence nunc pro tunc to September 20, 2021, to resolve the conflict in the two written judgments. See Lopez-Vasquez v. State, 966 So. 2d 996, 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (affirming conviction and sentence in Anders appeal but remanding for entry of an amended judgment). On remand, the trial court is also directed to correct Fonseca's scoresheet if necessary.

One judgment and sentence seems to reflect the court's attempt to sentence Fonseca to three years in the Department of Corrections on what by process of elimination would be count 1, with time served on count 2. A second judgment and sentence, entered the same day, reflects only a sentence on the felony Possession of Methamphetamine count. It appears that at the hearing on the motion to correct sentence the State, defense, and court recognized an error in the paperwork and attempted to correct same.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED with Instructions.

COHEN, WALLIS and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Fonseca v. State

Florida Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Sep 16, 2022
347 So. 3d 528 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)
Case details for

Fonseca v. State

Case Details

Full title:DONNA MARIE FONSECA, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

Court:Florida Court of Appeals, Fifth District

Date published: Sep 16, 2022

Citations

347 So. 3d 528 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)