288 So.3d 694
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Appellant Walter Eugene Walker, a juvenile charged as an adult, pleaded open guilty to armed burglary of a dwelling, first‑degree grand theft, grand theft of a firearm, and grand theft of a motor vehicle.
- The trial court imposed sentence; Walker appealed the sentences. The Fourth District affirmed the sentences.
- The district court identified three ministerial defects requiring remand: (1) no written order providing for sentence review after 20 years under §921.1402(2)(d) despite an oral pronouncement; (2) the scoresheet erroneously included 1.6 points for a tampering charge that had been dropped; and (3) no written nunc pro tunc order memorializing the court’s oral competency finding.
- The State conceded the scoresheet error and the absence of a written competency order; the trial judge had stated in denying a rule 3.800 motion that he would have imposed the same sentence even with the 1.6 point reduction.
- The court directed remand for entry of the three written ministerial orders and held that Walker did not need to be present for those entries.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Walker's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a written order is required to provide statutory sentence review after 20 years | Oral pronouncement alone is insufficient; court should enter written order | Trial court must enter written order to secure statutory review | Remand for entry of a written order providing sentence review after 20 years |
| Whether scoresheet error (1.6 points for dropped tampering charge) requires resentencing | Conceded error but harmless because judge said he would impose same sentence | Error requires correction; may require resentencing | Remand to correct scoresheet; no resentencing because record shows same sentence would be imposed |
| Whether a written nunc pro tunc competency order is required where court orally found competency | Conceded that a written nunc pro tunc order must be entered | Oral competency finding alone insufficient; written order required | Remand for entry of a written nunc pro tunc order finding defendant competent to proceed |
| Whether appellant must be present for entry of these ministerial orders | Precedent: defendant need not be present for ministerial acts | Presence not required; challenge unnecessary | Defendant need not be present for these three ministerial entries |
Key Cases Cited
- James v. State, 258 So. 3d 468 (4th DCA 2018) (remand for entry of written order providing entitlement to post‑sentence review)
- Brooks v. State, 969 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2007) (scoresheet errors harmless if record conclusively shows court would impose same sentence)
- Charles v. State, 223 So. 3d 318 (4th DCA 2017) (remand for entry of nunc pro tunc order finding competency)
- Naugle v. State, 244 So. 3d 1127 (4th DCA 2018) (defendant need not be present for ministerial corrections)
- Zern v. State, 215 So. 3d 185 (1st DCA 2017) (same)