MOSES TAYLOR, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Habitual Offender Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an Anders1 appeal in which we find no reversible error.
Despite affirmance, we remand the judgment and sentence on Count 2 for correction of a scrivener’s error in the written sentencing documents. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 84 So.3d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (affirming Anders appeal, but remanding for correction of scrivener’s error). Here, the trial court habitualized appellant, Moses Taylor [“Moses”], as to Count 1 (Sale of Cocaine), but did not provide for the same enhancement for Count 2 (Possession of Cocaine). Nevertheless, the written sentence as to Count 2 incorrectly indicates habitual offender enhancement.
Consistent with the oral pronouncement (and the plea agreement), Moses received a five-year statutory maximum sentence for Count 2, a third degree felony. Section 775.084(l)(a)3., Florida Statutes, does not allow enhanced habitual offender sentences for possession of a controlled substance; thus, it was clearly not the intention of the trial court to sentence Moses as a habitual offender for Count 2.
AFFIRMED. Sentence on Count 2 VACATED; and REMANDED for correction.
LAWSON and COHEN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 211 So. 3d 354 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…sed upon our independent review pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we affirm Davis’s judgment and sentence. We remand only for correction of a scrivener’s error in the judgment. See Taylor v. State, 120 So. 3d 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“Despite affirmance, we remand the judgment and sentence on Count 2 for correction of a scrivener’s error in the written sentencing documents.” (citation omitted)). On re [*355] mand, the trial court is directed to include in th…1 / 2
-
Barnes v. State, 227 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…orrected to conform to the trial court’s written order granting Barnes’s rule 3.800(b)(2) motion. We remand the case to the trial court to correct the scrivener’s error on the amended sentencing documents dated January 26, 2017. See Taylor v. State, 120 So. 3d 213, 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Barnes need not be present for entry of the corrected sentence. AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions. COHEN, C.J. and BERGER, J., concur. . The jury made an additional finding that Barnes possessed and discharged a fi…
-
Clark v. State, 196 So. 3d 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…he sentencing document'. Specifically, the heading of the sentencing document'reads sentences as to “Count I, III, & III” when it should read “Counts I, II, & III”. Accordingly, we remand for correction of the scrivener’s error. See Taylor v. State, 120 So. 3d 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (explaining that scrivener’s errors in sentencing documents may be corrected by an Anders appeal). AFFIRMED; REMANDED. ORFINGER and COHEN, JJ., concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Tomario D. Johnson v. State, 84 So. 3d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)
- Shawver v. Scarvelli, 84 So. 3d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)