RONALD DUBUC vs STATE OF FLORIDA

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).
3