STEVEN SANCHEZ
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.
The court affirmed the conviction and sentences but remanded to correct the judgment by explicitly stating the sentences were nunc pro tunc to when the appellant began serving his sentence.
[1] A trial court must expressly note that a judgment and sentence is nunc pro tunc to the date a defendant began serving his sentence to ensure the defendant receives proper…
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 intelligenceSteven Sanchez was convicted in the Circuit Court for Marion County and was resentenced on November 28, 2022. The trial court failed to note that the …
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 Nunc Pro Tunc Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this Anders1 appeal, we have carefully reviewed Appellant’s brief and the record on appeal. Finding no errors on the face of the record as to Appellant’s adjudication of guilt and the sentences ultimately imposed, we affirm. However, we do remand for entry of a further amended judgment and sentence to correct the November 28, 2022 judgment and sentence by specifically stating that the Amended Judgment and Sentence, and all other written sentencing orders entered on November 28, 2022, in this case, reflect their imposition as “nunc pro tunc to May 18, 2022, when Steven Sanchez began serving his sentence.” This remand is to ensure that Appellant receives proper credit for all time served in prison and in jail from May 18, 2022, when he began serving his sentence through November 28, 2022, when he was resentenced. Although the trial court has noted its intention to correct the failure to note that the judgment was to be “nunc pro tunc,” that error has not yet been corrected. Appellant need not be present for such correction. See Rivera v. State, 638 So. 2d 148, 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
EDWARDS, C.J., WALLIS, and PRATT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Rivera v. State, 638 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)