ROLEND ASHTIN JEAN FOSTER v. STATE OF FLORIDA (2023)

In this Anders appeal,¹ Rolend Ashtin Jean-Foster appeals from the judgments and sentences entered against him in two consolidated cases. We affirm in all respects without further comment except for minor sentencing issues. See In re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149, 152 (Fla. 1991) (holding a litigant does not lose his or her Anders rights because counsel is able to identify “some relatively minor sentencing issues”).

Jean-Foster contends that the trial court erred by failing to enter a corrected final judgment and sentence and a corrected monetary final judgment in case 20-CF-3129 that reflect the accurate amount of the fine and corresponding surcharge for count 3 (trafficking in methamphetamine, 28 to 200 grams). See § 938.04, Fla. Stat. (2020) (imposing, as an additional cost, 5% of any criminal fine levied upon a defendant). The trial court acknowledged that it erroneously imposed a fine of $500,000 rather than the statutorily prescribed fine of $100,000. See § 893.135(1)(f)1.b, Fla. Stat. (2020) (setting a $100,000 fine for trafficking “28 grams or more, but less than 200 grams” of methamphetamine). As a result, it entered a new judgment and sentence that removed any reference to a fine altogether. It also entered a corrected monetary final judgment reducing the total amount of fines for all counts from $683,018 to $263,018—a difference of $420,000—which reflects both the reduction in the fine for count 3 from $500,000 to $100,000 and the corresponding reduction in the 5% surcharge from $25,000 to $5,000. Therefore, the trial court did not commit any sentencing error in case 20-CF-3129 with respect to the fine and surcharge imposed for count 3.

With respect to the other minor sentencing issues raised by Jean-Foster, the trial court entered an order on December 21, 2022, rectifying these mistakes. The trial court's order modified Jean-Foster's sentence to “[r]emove the minimum mandatory for Count 1 ․ from case 20CF3109,” and the trial court ordered the clerk to “cite the appropriate county ordinance for costs imposed as a Final Judgment.” But Jean-Foster is correct that the trial court failed to implement these ordered directives through corrected judgments. We remand for the entry of corrected judgments in accordance with the trial court's December 21, 2022, order. See Clifford v. State, 300 So. 3d 761, 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (remanding for entry of an amended order because the trial court granted a motion to correct sentence but failed to enter an amended order); Mobley v. State, 968 So. 2d 632, 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (remanding for entry of a corrected order because the trial court granted a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion but failed to enter a corrected probation order); Diaz v. State, 43 So. 3d 874, 875 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (affirming but remanding to correct “a minor error relating to the classification of the Defendant's conviction which was referenced in the Anders brief filed on appeal”); see also Hamiter v. State, 290 So. 3d 1003, 1004, 1006 n.4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (certifying “a question regarding what constitutes a 'minor sentencing error' that can be addressed on the merits within an otherwise 'no merit' Anders brief” but “recogniz[ing] that that question is not so urgent in this particular case, given that the State voiced no objection to the granting of Hamiter's motion below”).

Affirmed but remanded for entry of corrected judgments.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

ATKINSON, Judge.

KELLY and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.