CHARLES WAYNE NASH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Charles Wayne Nash appealed the revocation of his probation and resulting sentences for eighteen third-degree felonies including fraudulent use of a credit card, criminal use of personal identification information, and forgery. The appellate court found no meritorious grounds to support the appeal but remanded to correct a scrivener's error in one judgment that incorrectly included a petit theft conviction.
The revocation of probation and sentences were properly imposed with no substantive grounds for appeal, but the case is remanded to correct a scrivener's error in case CF02-218 that incorrectly reflects a petit theft conviction and sentence that must be stricken.
[1] A scrivener's error in a written judgment, such as an incorrect offense listed, must be corrected by striking the erroneous conviction and sentence.
[2] An appellate court may affirm a judgment in all other respects while remanding for correction of a scrivener's error.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Following a thorough review of the record on appeal, we conclude there are no meritorious, substantive grounds to support this appeal.”
Establishes that the appellate court found no substantive merit to Nash's challenge of the probation revocation and sentences.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNash was originally convicted and placed on probation for eighteen third-degree felonies: two counts of fraudulent use of a credit card, one count of …
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 Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
VILLANTI, Judge.
In this Anders appeal,1 Charles Wayne Nash challenges the order of revocation of his probation and resulting sentences for two counts of fraudulent use of a credit card more than twice during a six-month period, one count of criminal use of personal identification information, and fifteen counts of forgery. These judgments resulted from the revocation of Mr. Nash’s probation after he was originally convicted and placed on probation for all of the above charges.
Following a thorough review of the record on appeal, we conclude there are no meritorious, substantive grounds to support this appeal. However, we remand this cause for correction of a scrivener’s error in one of Mr. Nash’s written judgments. Mr. Nash’s order of revocation of probation correctly notes that he was originally placed on probation for the eighteen third-degree felonies identified above. The order revokes Mr. Nash’s probation and adjudicates him guilty of each of the eighteen felonies. Because these felony convictions resulted from two separate felony informa-tions originally filed in two separate cases, two written judgments were prepared (one for each case number). The written judgment for case number CF02-177 correctly reflects convictions and sentences for one count of fraudulent use of a credit card, one count of criminal use of personal identification, and eleven counts of forgery. However, the written judgment for case number CF02-218 incorrectly reflects a conviction and sentence for petit theft, in addition to the correct convictions and sentences for one count of fraudulent use of a credit card and four counts of forgery. The conviction and sentence for petit theft was a scrivener’s error and must be stricken. This cause is affirmed in all other respects.
Affirmed and remanded with instructions.
DAVIS and LaROSE, JJ„ Concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).