MICHAEL PHILLIP FUSCO vs STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 8, 2022·No. 21-2222·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

MICHAEL PHILLIP FUSCO, Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D21-2222 LT Case No. 2019-CF-001530-A

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

________________________________/ Opinion filed April 8, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hernando County, Stephen E. Toner, Jr., Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Ali L. Hansen, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders 1 appeal, Michael Phillip Fusco seeks review of his judgment and sentence on the charge of sexual battery under section 794.011(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2019). We affirm in all respects but remand to the trial court for correction of a clerical error in one of the sentencing orders.

During the pendency of this appeal, Fusco moved to correct parts of three sentencing orders pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). Specifically, Fusco requested that the trial court correct the reference to the improper statute in the sentencing order finding him a sexual offender, as it mistakenly implicated sexual predator status. He also asked the trial court to strike an array of unauthorized, unpronounced monetary assessments as well as unpronounced special conditions in the orders for costs and sex offender probation.

The trial court granted Fusco’s motion and directed the clerk of court and office of probation to prepare amended costs and probation orders. The trial court also stated that it would prepare an amended order finding Fusco a sexual offender under the proper statute. Accordingly, amended orders for costs and probation were entered, but it does not appear the trial court entered an amended order finding Fusco a sexual offender. Therefore, we

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

affirm Fusco’s judgment and sentence but remand with instructions to amend the order finding Fusco a sexual offender to reflect the proper statute— section 943.0435, Florida Statutes (2019).

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

COHEN, WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

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

MICHAEL PHILLIP FUSCO vs STATE OF FLORIDA, (Fla. Ct. App. 2022).

MICHAEL PHILLIP FUSCO vs STATE OF FLORIDA (MICHAEL PHILLIP FUSCO vs STATE OF FLORIDA) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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