DAROUS JAMES BUSH
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 5th DCA | 2023-01-20
No. 22-1710
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2023) Positive Treatment

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 trial court's judgment and sentences are affirmed, but the case is remanded to correct a clerical error in the judgment document.

Headnotes

[1] In an Anders appeal, the appellate court may remand to correct a clerical error in the judgment document even when the error is harmless, though there is disagreement on…

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

Darous James Bush appealed his convictions by way of an Anders brief. The trial court had entered a judgment showing a nolo contendere plea, but the r…

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
Harmless Error Review Clerical Error Anders Appeal Nolo Contendere Plea

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Harmless Error Review cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm, without further comment, the judgment and sentences imposed by the trial court. However, we remand for the entry of an amended judgment to correct a clerical error to show that Appellant entered a plea of guilty, not nolo contendere, to the crimes for which he was convicted.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct clerical error. LAMBERT, C.J., and WALLIS, J., concur. EISNAUGLE, J., concurs in part, dissents in part, with opinion.

Footnotes
1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Case No. 22-1710 LT Case No. 2020-304834-CFDB EISNAUGLE, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part. I agree that we must affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence. However, I would not correct the clerical error here because our limited Anders review does not include correction of harmless error. See State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321, 322–23 (Fla. 1987) (“While courts should not assume the role of appellate counsel, reversible error should not be ignored simply because an indigent appellant or a public defender failed to point it out.” (emphasis added)); see also 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

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw