Gerald Paul Quaif v. State of Florida

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 5D2024-0888
LT Case No. 2021-CF-000940-A
_____________________________
GERALD PAUL QUAIF,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Sumter County.
Mary P. Hatcher, Judge.
Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Jane Almy, Assistant
Public Defender, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca
Rock McGuigan, Bureau Chief, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
January 23, 2026
EISNAUGLE, J.
In this Anders1 appeal, we find no reversible error and affirm
Gerald Paul Quaif’s judgment and sentence. We write briefly to
explain why we do not remand for the correction of a harmless
clerical error appearing in Appellant’s sentence.
1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

2
The written sentence imposes fines for each of Appellant’s
convictions, along with a five percent surcharge on each fine.
However, the sentence incorrectly cites section 960.25, Florida
Statutes, as authority for the surcharge. While section 960.25 no
longer exists, authority for the surcharge is found in section
938.04, Florida Statutes.
This error is clearly harmless to the defendant. Nevertheless,
our court has, from time to time, corrected harmless clerical errors
in Anders cases. See, e.g., Bush v. State, 354 So. 3d 626, 626 (Fla.
5th DCA 2023) (correcting “a clerical error to show that Appellant
entered a plea of guilty, not nolo contendere”); Dubuc v. State, 345
So. 3d 961, 962 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (correcting a clerical error in
the title of the judgment); see also Bailey v. State, 350 So. 3d 753
(Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (remanding for correction of a cost citation);
Echavarria v. State, 270 So. 3d 527, 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
(remanding for correction of a cost citation).
Although we have done so in practice, our decisions do not
identify any authority for an appellate court to sua sponte correct
harmless clerical errors in a defendant’s paperwork. Indeed,
correcting a harmless error is not authorized by the Anders
procedure set forth in State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1987).
See Williams v. State, 422 So. 3d 1155, 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025).
In Causey, the Florida Supreme Court established our Anders
procedure, instructing that, “[w]hile courts should not assume the
role of appellate counsel, reversible error should not be ignored
simply because an indigent appellant or a public defender failed to
point it out.” 503 So. 2d at 322–23 (emphasis added).
The federal courts concur, declining to correct harmless errors
in Anders cases. See, e.g., United States v. Wilmoth, 668 F. App’x
455, 457 (4th Cir. 2016) (“In accordance with Anders, we have
reviewed the entire record in this case and found no meritorious
issues for appeal, other than the risk enhancement issue, which
we conclude fails harmless error review.”); United States v. Hill,
358 F. App’x 729, 731 (7th Cir. 2010) (applying harmless error
analysis to potential error in Anders case).
While decisions like Bush and Dubuc permit a panel of our
court to correct harmless clerical errors in Anders cases, we are not

3
aware of any decision holding that correcting such an error is
mandatory.2 As such, we now hold that correcting a clerical error
that is harmless to the defendant in an Anders case is, at most,
discretionary. We therefore decline to correct the statutory
citation for the five percent surcharge in this case.
Given that our decision today, and decisions like Bush and
Dubuc, will likely evade review, we direct the Clerk of this court,
pursuant to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial
Administration 2.140(2) and (3), to refer this opinion to the Clerk
of the Florida Supreme Court and the Appellate Court Rules
Committee of The Florida Bar for consideration of a rule
amendment clarifying the scope of an appellate court’s Anders
review.
AFFIRMED.
KILBANE, J., concurs.
WALLIS, J., concurs in part, dissents in part, with opinion.
2 See Gadson v. State, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2314a (Fla. 5th DCA
Oct. 24, 2025) (“As our supreme court explained nearly a century
ago, ‘no decision is authority on any question not raised and
considered, although it may be involved in the facts of the case.’”
(quoting State v. Du Bose, 128 So. 4, 6 (Fla. 1930))); see also Deblois
v. Dominguez, 390 So. 3d 51, 54 n.5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“The
general rule is that issues, even jurisdictional issues, lurking in
the record but not addressed do not bind the court in later cases.”
(citation and internal bracket omitted)); Physicians Med. Ctrs. v.
Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 335 So. 3d 1284, 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA
2022) (“[I]f an issue is not argued, or though argued is ignored by
the court, or is reserved, the decision does not constitute a
precedent to be followed[.]” (citation omitted)).

4
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________

5
Case No. 5D2024-0888
LT Case No. 2021-CF-000940-A
WALLIS, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority’s affirmance of the appellant’s
judgment and sentence. I respectfully dissent, however, to the
majority’s declination to remand for correction of the statutory
citation. I would instead follow this court’s prior precedents in
remanding for correction of such error in Anders cases. See Dubuc
v. State, 345 So. 3d 961, 962 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (affirming
judgment and sentence but remanding with directions to correct
statutory citation in judgment); Walker v. State, 357 So. 3d 724,
725 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (same); Torres v. State, 293 So. 3d 634
(Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (same).