Court Opinion

ID: 9904281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 16:28:20.456242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:05.064834
License: Public Domain

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

RICHARD LEE WALKER,

            Appellant,

 v.                                    Case No. 5D21-2207
                                       LT Case Nos. 2020-00816-CF-54
                                                    2021-00306-CF-54

STATE OF FLORIDA,

          Appellee.
________________________________/

Opinion filed August 5, 2022

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

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender,
and Edward J. Weiss and Allison A.
Havens, Assistant Public Defenders,
Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton,
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona
Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.
       In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm the judgments and sentences

imposed by the trial court in two cases below following Appellant’s open nolo

contendere plea. However, we remand with directions to the trial court to

enter an amended or corrected judgment in each case to correct the following

clerical errors.

       First, in circuit court case number 2021-306-CF, the judgment should

reflect the correct statutory citation of section 843.23(2)(a), Florida Statutes,

on the sole count. Second, in circuit court case number 2020-816-CF, the

trial court orally announced that the sentences on all four counts in the case

were to be served concurrently. The written judgment and sentence do not

adequately reflect this pronouncement. 2

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

       The section of the written judgment and sentence addressing how the
       2

sentences for each count are to be served is in the aggregate and not
separated by count. However, as shown below, the judgment then arguably
attempts to treat count IV separately; but it does not make clear that the
sentence in count IV is to run concurrently with the sentences set forth in
counts I, II, and III:

               Consecutive/Concurrent As To Other Counts

                   _XX_ It is further ordered that the sentence
                        imposed for this count shall run (check
                        one):
                        ___ Consecutive to _CT II & III_ Concurrent
                        with sentence set forth in Count _I_ of this
                        case.

                                         2
     AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.

LAMBERT, C.J., EVANDER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

                                3