WEAVER v. STATE (2025)

Shane Patrick Weaver seeks review of his judgment and sentence in this Anders * appeal. Having reviewed the record, we affirm as Weaver's judgment and sentence but note that the cost of the public defender application fee, which was pronounced at Weaver's sentencing directly following his trial, was not included in the cost order. We reverse solely for the entry of an amended judgment and sentence to correct for the amount of the public defender application fee. See Fucci v. State, 403 So. 3d 1091 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025); see also Mneimne v. State, 408 So. 3d 129 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025).

Affirmed, in part; Reversed, in part; and Remanded with instructions.

I concur in the panel's affirmance of the judgment and sentence, but I respectfully dissent from the panel's sua sponte correction of a scrivener's error in this Anders appeal. See Flowers v. State, 395 So. 3d 1077, 1078 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024) (Eisnaugle, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part).

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Per Curiam.

Makar and Soud, JJ., concur. Pratt, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with opinion.