On appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County.Heidi Davis, Judge.
Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Teresa D. Sutton,Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
John M. Guard, Acting Attorney General, Tallahassee, andMarissa V. Giles, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach,for Appellee.
February 14, 2025
PER CURIAM.
We affirm this Anders* appeal but remand for the correctionof scrivener’s errors. The trial court found that Appellant met thecriteria for habitual felony offender (“HFO”) sentencing. However,
Original opinion page 2
2the court did not impose an enhanced sentence, finding itunnecessary for the protection of the public. See § 775.084(4)(e),Fla. Stat. (2022). At odds with the court’s oral pronouncement,Appellant’s written sentence has a box marked indicating that hewas “sentenced to an extended term” under the HFO statute.Likewise, the court’s HFO sentencing order reflects that Appellantwas “sentenced pursuant to” the HFO statute. On remand,Appellant need not be present for the correction of these scrivener’serrors. See Sol v. State, 268 So. 3d 749, 750–51 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)(remanding for the same correction to a written sentence andnoting that the appellant’s presence was not required for thecorrection); see also Walker v. State, 393 So. 3d 274, 275–76 (Fla.5th DCA 2024) (affirming an Anders appeal but remanding for thecorrection of “an inadvertent check mark” on the written sentencethat contradicted the court’s oral pronouncement).We also note that the court imposed special conditions ofprobation at sentencing, but the record does not contain a writtenprobation order. See § 948.039, Fla. Stat. (“The court shall imposethe special terms and conditions by oral pronouncement atsentencing and include the terms and conditions in the writtensentencing order.”). On remand, the court shall enter a writtenprobation order that comports with its oral pronouncements.AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions.JAY, HARRIS, and PRATT, JJ., concur._____________________________Not final until disposition of any timely andauthorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or9.331._____________________________
Footnotes
* Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).Back to text
Opinion text and original PDF from Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal · Source opinion