Flowers v. State
In an Anders appeal, the majority found a clerical error in the written sentence (omission of a mandatory minimum on one count that was orally pronounced and reflected everywhere else) and sua sponte remanded for entry of an amended sentencing order, despite conceding the error did not prejudice the defendant. Judge Eisnaugle concurred in the affirmance but dissented from the remand, arguing that Anders review exists solely to protect defendants' rights and that appellate courts lack authority to sua sponte correct sentencing errors that benefit the State when the State did not appeal or raise the issue.
Key facts
- Flowers appealed a conviction and sentence as an indigent defendant, and appellate counsel filed an Anders brief indicating no meritorious issues existed for appeal.
- The trial court imposed a sentence that orally pronounced and documented a mandatory minimum on one count, but the written sentencing order contained a clerical omission of that mandatory minimum on that count.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion is useful to criminal appellate practitioners because it highlights a live disagreement within the Fifth DCA over the proper scope of Anders review: may a court sua sponte remand to fix a sentencing error… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.