DAROUS JAMES BUSH vs STATE OF FLORIDA

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: January 20, 2023
• Docket: 22-1710
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

DAROUS JAMES BUSH,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22-1710 LT Case No. 2020-304834-CFDB

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. ________________________________/

Opinion filed January 20, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Raul A. Zambrano, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Joshua Mosley, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and L. Charlene Matthews, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. In this Anders 1 appeal, we affirm, without further comment, the

judgment and sentences imposed by the trial court. However, we remand

for the entry of an amended judgment to correct a clerical error to show that

Appellant entered a plea of guilty, not nolo contendere, to the crimes for

which he was convicted.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct clerical error.

LAMBERT, C.J., and WALLIS, J., concur. EISNAUGLE, J., concurs in part, dissents in part, with opinion.

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

2 Case No. 22-1710 LT Case No. 2020-304834-CFDB

EISNAUGLE, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part.

I agree that we must affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence.

However, I would not correct the clerical error here because our limited

Anders review does not include correction of harmless error. See State v.

Causey, 503 So. 2d 321, 322–23 (Fla. 1987) (“While courts should not

assume the role of appellate counsel, reversible error should not be ignored

simply because an indigent appellant or a public defender failed to point it

out.” (emphasis added)); see also United States v. Wilmoth, 668 F. App’x

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 F. App’x 729, 731 (7th Cir. 2010)

(applying harmless error analysis to potential error in Anders case).