CHRISTOPHER HUNTER vs STATE OF FLORIDA

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CHRISTOPHER HUNTER, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D20-1609 5D20-1610 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed March 26, 2021 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Marlene M. Alva, Judge. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Thomas J. Lukashow, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Christopher Hunter appeals the partial denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm in all respects but remand for the correction of a scrivener’s error in his written sentence on Count 4 in Case No. 2011-CF-003387-A to conform to the trial court’s oral proclamation at resentencing. See Beard v. State, 27 So. 3d 186, 187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Because this corrected sentence does not affect Hunter’s term of incarceration, he need not be present for this ministerial act. See Johnson v. State, 899 So. 2d 1283, 1283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). We separately note appointed postconviction counsel’s Anders1 brief and motion to withdraw. An Anders brief is unnecessary in postconviction appeals, and neither we nor appellate counsel need to follow Anders’ procedures or requirements. See Smith v. State, 956 So. 2d 494, 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Medrano v. State, 795 So. 2d 1009, 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Indeed, there is no right to counsel in postconviction proceedings. Medrano, 795 So. 2d at 1010 (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 554–56 (1987)). Based on the meritorious issue raised in counsel’s brief, we deny the motion to withdraw. We will, however, strike postconviction Anders briefs going forward. AFFIRMED and REMANDED. COHEN, TRAVER and NARDELLA, JJ., concur. 1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.