DEMETRIUS ANTONINE MARTIN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Demetrius Antonine Martin appealed his judgment and sentence. The appellate court, reviewing under the Anders standard, found no reversible error in the conviction and sentence but identified three scrivener's errors in the judgment and probation order that required correction on remand.
The court found no reversible error in the judgment and sentence and affirmed the conviction. However, the court remanded for correction of three scrivener's errors: the mislabeling of counts 85 and 94 with respect to offense classifications, and the incorrect probationary term stated in the probation order.
[1] A judgment and sentence will be affirmed when no reversible error is found upon review.
[2] Scrivener's errors in a judgment or sentence may be corrected on remand.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“we find no reversible error and affirm Appellant's judgment and sentence. However, we remand for correction of three scrivener's errors.”
The court's holding that while the conviction and sentence stand, procedural corrections are needed for clerical errors in the judgment documents.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Martin was convicted of multiple counts including grand theft and dealing in stolen property. The trial court entered an amended judgment on…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Anders V. California cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon review pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we find no reversible error and affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence. However, we remand for correction of three scrivener’s errors. See Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 n.3 (Fla. 2003) (defining a scrivener’s error as a written clerical error that is not the result of a “judicial determination or error”). The amended judgment, filed on March 10, 2021, lists count 85 as grand theft (third-degree felony). This count should be listed as dealing in stolen property (second-degree felony). Also, the amended judgment lists count 94 as dealing in stolen property (second-degree felony). This count should be listed as grand theft (third-degree felony). Additionally, the amended probation order, filed on March 11, 2021, indicates a probationary term of three
years on counts 85 and 95. To be consistent with the oral pronouncement and written sentence, this should reflect a probationary term of 10 years. On remand, the lower tribunal shall correct these scrivener’s errors, consistent with this opinion. Appellant need not be present for these ministerial corrections. 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 and REMANDED for correction of scrivener’s errors.
ROBERTS, ROWE, and JAY, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Columbus Rickey Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2003)
- Leronnie Lee Walton v. State, 106 So. 3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)