Background
Richard Lafond appealed his conviction and sentence following a negotiated guilty plea to petit theft as a first-degree misdemeanor. His appellate counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California.
Lafond committed the offense in August 2024, when petit theft was defined in section 812.014(2)(e), Florida Statutes (2024). The written judgment instead identified section 812.014(2)(f), which defined grand theft of a firearm with a prior conviction.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District affirmed Lafond’s conviction and sentence but remanded for correction of the statute number in the written judgment.
The court directed the trial court to replace the erroneous statutory reference with the provision applicable to Lafond’s petit-theft offense. Because the correction is ministerial, Lafond does not need to be present.
Key Takeaways
- Lafond’s conviction and sentence following his negotiated plea remain affirmed.
- A written judgment identifying the wrong offense statute may be corrected on remand as a scrivener’s error.
- The defendant need not attend the ministerial correction of the judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that an otherwise affirmed criminal judgment should accurately identify the statute of conviction. An incorrect citation—particularly one describing a materially different offense—may require a limited remand even when the conviction and sentence are left intact.