Rodriguez v. State
223 So. 3d 1053
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Alex Rodriguez was charged with two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm (counts 1–2), one count of discharging a firearm in public (count 3), and one count of shooting into an unoccupied vehicle (count 4); count 4 was nolle prossed.
- A jury convicted Rodriguez on counts 1–3 as charged.
- At sentencing the court refused defense counsel’s request for youthful offender treatment and imposed concurrent mandatory minimum 20-year terms on counts 1 and 2 and 170 days on count 3.
- Appellant’s counsel filed an Anders brief, and this court exercised appellate jurisdiction and reviewed the record.
- The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentences but identified scrivener’s errors in the written judgment: it inaccurately stated Rodriguez received youthful offender status and cited the wrong statute for count 3.
- The court remanded for correction of those clerical errors and held Rodriguez need not be present for the corrections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of convictions/sentences on appeal under Anders | Rodriguez argues (via counsel’s Anders brief) no reversible error exists; seek review for arguable issues | State defends convictions and sentences as proper | Court affirmed convictions and sentences after independent review |
| Written judgment incorrectly states youthful offender sentence | Rodriguez argues written judgment must match oral pronouncement; error prejudicial | State implicitly concedes clerical error by remand request | Held oral pronouncement controls; remand to correct written judgment to remove youthful offender notation |
| Wrong statute cited for count 3 in judgment | Rodriguez (or appellate court) contends judgment lists incorrect offense/statute | State did not dispute need to fix scrivener error | Held citation is a scrivener’s error; remand to amend count 3 to correct statute |
| Defendant’s physical presence required for clerical corrections | Rodriguez may contend presence is required for sentence alterations | State relies on authority that defendant need not be present for clerical fixes | Held defendant need not be present when correcting scrivener’s errors |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (standards for counsel filing a brief asserting the appeal is without merit)
- Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007) (oral pronouncement of sentence controls over written judgment)
- Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2003) (remand to correct clerical errors in judgment and sentence)
- Justice v. State, 674 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1996) (written judgment must conform to oral sentence)
- Grant v. State, 983 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (remand to correct scrivener’s error so judgment reflects jury verdict)
- Mosley v. State, 688 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (treating incorrect statute citation as scrivener’s error and remanding for correction)
- Palmer v. State, 141 So. 3d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (defendant need not be present for correction of clerical errors)