Background
Delondra Knight appealed the revocation of supervision and the resulting sentences. Appointed counsel filed an Anders brief representing that the appeal presented no meritorious issue, and Knight did not submit a pro se brief.
After independently reviewing the record, the First District found no basis to disturb the revocation or the sentences as orally pronounced. It did, however, identify several discrepancies in the written judgment and sentencing documents.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the revocation of Knight’s supervision and the orally pronounced sentences. It explained that a scrivener’s error is a mistake in a written sentence that conflicts with the oral pronouncement or record and does not result from a judicial determination or error.
The written judgment incorrectly stated that Knight had been tried and found guilty, even though Knight admitted the probation violations in an open plea. The count 2 sentencing form omitted the revocation of supervision, and the documents designated the sentences as concurrent despite the oral pronouncement of five years on count 1 followed by a consecutive three-year sentence on count 2. The court remanded solely for ministerial correction of those errors and held that Knight need not be present.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court conducting Anders review independently examines the record even when the defendant files no pro se brief.
- When written sentencing documents conflict with the oral pronouncement or record, the discrepancy may be corrected as a scrivener’s error.
- A defendant need not be present when the trial court makes only ministerial corrections conforming the written records to the oral sentence.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that an affirmance does not excuse inaccuracies in criminal judgments and sentencing forms. Written records must accurately reflect the basis for the judgment, the revocation of supervision, and whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively.
It also distinguishes clerical corrections from substantive resentencing: the trial court may correct these documents on remand without Knight’s presence because the appellate court left the orally pronounced sentences unchanged.