RONALD DUBUC
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 5th DCA | 2022-08-19
No. 21-2969
345 So. 3d 961 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2022) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

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 judgment and sentence imposed following appellant's nolo contendere plea are affirmed, but the case is remanded to correct clerical errors in the judgment reflecting an incorrect "VOP" designation and incorrect statutory citation.

Headnotes

[1] An appellate court must affirm a judgment and sentence imposed following a nolo contendere plea when no reversible error appears on the face of the record.

[2] Clerical errors in a judgment, such as incorrect case type designations or statutory citations, may be grounds for remand to the trial court for correction.

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
Facts & Procedural History

Ronald Dubuc entered a nolo contendere plea and received a time-served sentence on a single count. The trial court's judgment contained two clerical e…

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
Clerical Error Correction Anders Appeal Nolo Contendere Plea Harmless Error Analysis

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Clerical Error Correction cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

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

RONALD DUBUC,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D21-2969 LT Case No. 2018-001256-CF

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed August 19, 2022 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Putnam County, Howard O. McGillin, Jr., Judge. Terry P. Roberts, of Law Office of Terry P. Roberts, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah A. Chance, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM.

In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm the judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court on the sole count following Appellant’s nolo contendere plea to a “time served” sentence. However, we remand with directions that an amended judgment be entered to correct two clerical errors. First, the judgment reflects that it is a “VOP”2 judgment. This was not a VOP case, so the reference to VOP is to be deleted. Second, the judgment should reflect the correct statutory citation of section 943.0435(3)(a), Florida Statutes.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.

LAMBERT, C.J., and EDWARDS, J., concur. EISNAUGLE, J., concurs in part, dissents in part, with opinion.

Footnotes
1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2 VOP is short for violation of probation. Case No. 5D21-2969 LT Case No. 2018-001256-CF EISNAUGLE, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. I agree that the judgment and sentence must be affirmed. However, I dissent from the majority’s remand for correction of a scrivener’s error in the title of the judgment. Our Anders review is limited to reversible error that appears on the face of the record. See State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321, 322–23 (Fla. 1987) (holding that once appointed counsel files an Anders brief, an appellate court has the duty to independently review the entire record “to the extent necessary to discover any errors apparent on the face of the record” and, if a potential reversible error is found, to direct that briefs be submitted prior to rendering decision). Considering the substance of the judgment, this scrivener’s error, which appears only in the title, is harmless to Appellant and is therefore outside of the scope of our Anders review. See, e.g., United States v. Wilmoth, 668 F. App’x 455, 457 (4th Cir. 2016) (“In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and found no meritorious issues for appeal, other than the risk enhancement issue, which we conclude fails harmless error review.”); United States v. Hill, 358 F. App’x 729, 731 (7th Cir. 2010) (applying harmless error analysis to potential error in Anders case).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Youngblood v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)
    …34 2022-CF-000335 KILBANE, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. I fully concur with the majority’s decision to affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentences and to remand for correction of costs. I otherwise dissent. See Dubuc v. State, 345 So. 3d 961 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (Eisnaugle, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).…
  • Youngblood v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)
  • Quaif v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2026)

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw