RONALD DUBUC vs STATE OF FLORIDA

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: August 19, 2022
• Docket: 21-2969
• 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

RONALD DUBUC,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D21-2969 LT Case No. 2018-001256-CF

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed August 19, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Putnam County, Howard O. McGillin, Jr., Judge.

Terry P. Roberts, of Law Office of Terry P. Roberts, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah A. Chance, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm the judgment and sentence imposed

by the trial court on the sole count following Appellant’s nolo contendere plea

to a “time served” sentence. However, we remand with directions that an

amended judgment be entered to correct two clerical errors.

First, the judgment reflects that it is a “VOP” 2 judgment. This was not

a VOP case, so the reference to VOP is to be deleted. Second, the judgment

should reflect the correct statutory citation of section 943.0435(3)(a), Florida

Statutes.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.

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

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2 VOP is short for violation of probation.

2 Case No. 5D21-2969 LT Case No. 2018-001256-CF

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

I agree that the judgment and sentence must be affirmed. However, I

dissent from the majority’s remand for correction of a scrivener’s error in the

title of the judgment. Our Anders review is limited to reversible error that

appears on the face of the record. See State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321,

322–23 (Fla. 1987) (holding that once appointed counsel files an Anders

brief, an appellate court has the duty to independently review the entire

record “to the extent necessary to discover any errors apparent on the face

of the record” and, if a potential reversible error is found, to direct that briefs

be submitted prior to rendering decision). Considering the substance of the

judgment, this scrivener’s error, which appears only in the title, is harmless

to Appellant and is therefore outside of the scope of our Anders review. See,

e.g., 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).