Justin Matthew Ducker v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Justin Matthew Ducker v. State of Florida

197 So. 3d 1095

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 1, 2016

Docket1D14-4539

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 197 So. 3d 1095 (Justin Matthew Ducker v. State of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Justin Matthew Ducker v. State of Florida, 197 So. 3d 1095 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Having reviewed the record, we affirm Appellant’s convictions and sentences, but we remand with directions to correct two apparent scrivener’s errors in the judgment.

First, at trial, the court granted Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal to the extent it reduced the offense of criminal mischief (count 4) from a first degree misdemeanor to a second degree misdemeanor. The jury also specifically found Appellant guilty of criminal mischief less than $200, which is a second degree misdemeanor. However, the written judgment reflects a conviction for count 4 as originally charged: a first degree misdemeanor. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court shall correct the judgment to reflect that count 4 is a second degree misdemeanor. See Clark v. State, 85 So.3d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (affirming Anders appeal but remanding with directions to correct con *1096 viction in judgment); see also Bryant v. State, 124 So.3d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (affirming Anders appeal but remanding for correction of scrivener’s error in sentence).

Second, at the sentencing hearing, the trial court orally designated Appellant as a habitual felony offender and prison releas-ee reoffender. However, the written judgment in the record on appeal does not reflect these designations. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court shall correct the júdgment to conform to the oral pronouncement. See Bryant, 124 So.3d at 257 (remanding for written judgment to conform to oral pronouncement); see also Marshall v. State, 78 So.3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (stating that if there is no ambiguity in oral pronouncement, sentencing order must be corrected to reflect oral pronouncement).

Appellant need not be present for these ministerial corrections to the judgment. See Walton v. State, 106 So.3d 522, 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013),(“[A].defendant need not.be present at resentencing if the error to be corrected is ‘purely ministerial’ or clerical, and involves no exercise, of. the court’s discretion.”).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions. ■

WETHERELL, RAY, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Having reviewed the record, we affirm Appellant’s convictions and sentences, but we remand with directions to correct two apparent scrivener’s errors in the judgment.

First, at trial, the court granted Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal to the extent it reduced the offense of criminal mischief (count 4) from a first degree misdemeanor to a second degree misdemeanor. The jury also specifically found Appellant guilty of criminal mischief less than $200, which is a second degree misdemeanor. However, the written judgment reflects a conviction for count 4 as originally charged: a first degree misdemeanor. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court shall correct the judgment to reflect that count 4 is a second degree misdemeanor. See Clark v. State, 85 So.3d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (affirming Anders appeal but remanding with directions to correct con *1096 viction in judgment); see also Bryant v. State, 124 So.3d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (affirming Anders appeal but remanding for correction of scrivener’s error in sentence).

Second, at the sentencing hearing, the trial court orally designated Appellant as a habitual felony offender and prison releas-ee reoffender. However, the written judgment in the record on appeal does not reflect these designations. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court shall correct the júdgment to conform to the oral pronouncement. See Bryant, 124 So.3d at 257 (remanding for written judgment to conform to oral pronouncement); see also Marshall v. State, 78 So.3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (stating that if there is no ambiguity in oral pronouncement, sentencing order must be corrected to reflect oral pronouncement).

Appellant need not be present for these ministerial corrections to the judgment. See Walton v. State, 106 So.3d 522, 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013),(“[A].defendant need not.be present at resentencing if the error to be corrected is ‘purely ministerial’ or clerical, and involves no exercise, of. the court’s discretion.”).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions. ■

WETHERELL, RAY, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 So. 3d 1095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/justin-matthew-ducker-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack