DONELL DOWELL
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 trial court's failure to impose an enhanced sentence despite finding habitual felony offender criteria was met was proper, but the written sentencing documents containing marks indicating an extended term was imposed must be corrected to conform to the court's oral pronouncement, and a written probation order must be entered.
[1] Scrivener's errors in a written sentencing document that contradict the trial court's oral pronouncement at sentencing may be corrected on remand without requiring the ap…
[2] A trial court must include special conditions of probation imposed orally at sentencing in a written sentencing order pursuant to section 948.039, Florida Statutes.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was found to meet the criteria for habitual felony offender sentencing, but the trial court declined to impose an enhanced sentence, finding…
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 Oral Pronouncement Vs. Written Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm this Anders* appeal but remand for the correction of scrivener’s errors. The trial court found that Appellant met the criteria for habitual felony offender (“HFO”) sentencing. However,
* Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
the court did not impose an enhanced sentence, finding it unnecessary for the protection of the public. See § 775.084(4)(e), Fla. Stat. (2022). At odds with the court’s oral pronouncement, Appellant’s written sentence has a box marked indicating that he was “sentenced to an extended term” under the HFO statute. Likewise, the court’s HFO sentencing order reflects that Appellant was “sentenced pursuant to” the HFO statute. On remand, Appellant need not be present for the correction of these scrivener’s errors. See Sol v. State, 268 So. 3d 749, 750–51 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (remanding for the same correction to a written sentence and noting that the appellant’s presence was not required for the correction); see also Walker v. State, 393 So. 3d 274, 275–76 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024) (affirming an Anders appeal but remanding for the correction of “an inadvertent check mark” on the written sentence that contradicted the court’s oral pronouncement).
We also note that the court imposed special conditions of probation at sentencing, but the record does not contain a written probation order. See § 948.039, Fla. Stat. (“The court shall impose the special terms and conditions by oral pronouncement at sentencing and include the terms and conditions in the written sentencing order.”). On remand, the court shall enter a written probation order that comports with its oral pronouncements.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions.
JAY, HARRIS, and PRATT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donell Dowell v. State, 393 So. 3d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)…these scrivener’s errors. See Sol v. State, 268 So. 3d 749, 750–51 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (remanding for the same correction to a written sentence and noting that the appellant’s presence was not required for the correction); see also Walker v. State, 393 So. 3d 274, 275–76 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024) (affirming an Anders appeal but remanding for the correction of “an inadvertent check mark” on the written sentence that contradicted the court’s oral pronouncement). We also note that the court imposed special condition…
-
Cinamon v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2026)
-
Nickeous Lamont Jenkins v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)…he statutory surcharge on the fine must be stricken if the discretionary fine was not orally pronounced at sentencing”). Because correction of these scrivener’s errors is merely ministerial, Jenkins does not need to be present. See Walker v. State, 393 So. 3d 274, 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024) (“Because this resentencing to correct a scrivener’s error is simply a ministerial act, Appellant need not be present.” (citation omitted)). AFFIRMED; and REMANDED with instructions. MAKAR, EISNAUGLE, and BOATWRIGHT, JJ.,…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Sol v. State, 268 So. 3d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
- Donell Dowell v. State, 393 So. 3d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)