SIMON V. STATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2004 ANTHONY SIMON, ** Appellant, ** vs. ** CASE NO. 3D03-3198 THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 90-45486-B Appellee. ** Opinion filed April 7, 2004. An Appeal under Fla.R.App.P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Leonard E. Glick, Judge. Anthony Simon, in proper person. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, for appellee. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and SHEPHERD, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. SCHWARTZ, C.J., and SHEPHERD, J., concur. Anthony Simon v. The State of Florida Case No. 3D03-3198 COPE, J. (concurring in part, dissenting in part). Defendant-appellant Anthony Simon filed a motion to correct illegal sentence which argued, among other things, that the sentencing order on counts three through eight illegally imposed a firearm mandatory minimum sentence, when the defendant had been acquitted of the use of a firearm in the underlying crimes. The State s response demonstrates that there is no illegal sentence, because the sentencing orders on counts three through eight contain a scrivener s error. The oral pronouncement at sentencing was for mandatory minimum sentences under the habitual violent felony offender (HVFO) statute and no mandatory minimum sentences were imposed under the firearm statute. I acknowledge that this disposes of the illegal sentence claim. Further, since the defendant is serving a life sentence with a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years as an HVFO on count one, the sentences on counts three through eight do not make a practical difference. Nonetheless, the defendant is entitled to have the sentencing order corrected to accurately reflect the trial court s oral pronouncement. The State suggests, and I agree, that we should remand for that purpose. another postconviction It is true that the defendant can file motion requesting correction of the scrivener s error, but it would be more efficient for us to send it back to accomplish that purpose at this time.
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.
