JONES v. STATE (2024)

Following review of the record and proceedings below for fundamental error pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we find none. We affirm Appellant's judgment and sentence but remand for the correction of a scrivener's error in the revocation order. The order details that Appellant entered a nolo contendere plea to his probation violation charge, but the record establishes that Appellant contested the charge and was ultimately found in violation after an evidentiary hearing. Remand is appropriate for entry of a corrected revocation order consistent with this opinion. See S.C. v. State, 322 So. 3d 228, 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (affirming judgment, sentence, and revocation order but remanding for entry of corrected revocation order); Enno v. State, 59 So. 3d 149, 149–50 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Appellant need not be present for this ministerial correction to the order. See Wolk v. State, 320 So. 3d 230, 230–31 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021); Harvis v. State, 252 So. 3d 418, 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).

Affirmed, and Remanded for entry of a corrected revocation order.

Per Curiam.

B.L. Thomas, Kelsey, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.