RICHARD LEE WALKER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 5th DCA | 2022-08-05
No. 21-2207
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2022)

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.

Holding

The convictions and sentences are affirmed, but the judgments must be amended to correct the statutory citation in case 2021-306-CF and clarify that all sentences in case 2020-816-CF run concurrently as the trial court orally announced.

Headnotes

[1] Where a trial court orally announces at sentencing that multiple sentences shall run concurrently, the written judgment must clearly reflect this concurrent designation f…

Previewing 1 of 1 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
Facts & Procedural History

Walker entered an open nolo contendere plea in two cases involving four counts total. The trial court orally announced that all sentences in the 2020-…

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.

Topics
Anders Appeal Nolo Contendere Plea Concurrent Sentences

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Anders Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

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

Footnotes
1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2 The section of the written judgment and sentence addressing how the 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. AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions. LAMBERT, C.J., EVANDER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw