Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Nickeous Lamont JENKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
In this Anders 1 appeal, we affirm Nickeous Lamont Jenkins’ judgment and sentence in L.T. Case No. 2022-CF-003423-A.
However, we remand for the correction of scrivener's errors in the written sentence and the amended final judgment accessing charges, costs, and fines. Both the written sentence and the amended final judgment impose a $250.00 discretionary fine pursuant to section 775.083, Florida Statutes, as well as the additional imposition of $12.50, representing the 5% surcharge on the $250.00 fine, pursuant to section 938.04, Florida Statutes. The trial court did not orally pronounce this fine at sentencing; and the fine and surcharge should accordingly be stricken. See Osterhoudt v. State, 214 So. 3d 550, 551 (Fla. 2017) (holding that “trial courts must individually pronounce discretionary fees, costs, and fines during a sentencing hearing to comply with due process requirements”); see also Lamoreaux v. State, 88 So. 3d 379, 381 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (explaining that “[a] discretionary fine imposed and the 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.
FOOTNOTES
1. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Per Curiam.
Makar, Eisnaugle, and Boatwright, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Case No. 5D2023-2800
Decided: December 13, 2024
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)