STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
RONNIE E. CHAPLIN, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court approved a district court decision permitting a defendant to raise a computational error in his sentencing guidelines score sheet for the first time on post-conviction appeal, rather than only on direct appeal. The court held that trial courts have authority to correct sentencing guidelines calculation errors at any time under amended Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
Computational errors in sentencing guidelines score sheets may be corrected at any time by the trial court under amended Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The district court properly reversed the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief, permitting correction of the scoring error and allowing the trial court to reconsider whether departure from the guidelines was warranted.
[1] A computational error in a sentencing guidelines score sheet can be raised on direct appeal even without a contemporaneous objection at trial if the error resulted in a d…
[2] A trial court may correct an incorrect calculation of a sentencing guidelines score sheet at any time.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a computational error in a sentencing guidelines score sheet could be raised on direct appeal even though a contemporaneous objection was not made at trial, where 'the impact of the error was that the trial court departed from the sentencing guidelines in rule 3.701 without making the mandatorily written, clear and convincing reasons for departure.'”
Establishes that computational errors in guidelines scores are treated as guideline departures, not mere ministerial mistakes, allowing them to be raised without contemporaneous objection.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRonnie Chaplin was convicted by jury of two counts of armed robbery. His sentencing guidelines score sheet initially calculated 186 points, recommendi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contemporaneous Objection Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
EHRLICH, Justice.
We have for our review Chaplin v. State, 473 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), which expressly and directly conflicts with other decisions of this court and other district courts of appeal. We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, and approve the decision below.
Respondent was found guilty by a jury of two counts of armed robbery. Respondent elected to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines and his score sheet totaled 186 points for a recommended range of 9-12 years incarceration. However, as the state concedes, the score sheet erroneously contained an additional 25 points, which, if properly calculated initially, would have resulted in a total point score of 161, for a recommended range of 7-9 years. Counsel for respondent did not raise this computational error on direct appeal, Chaplin v. State, 449 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), but instead raised this issue for the first time in a motion for post-convic tion relief, which was denied by the trial court. The district court reversed, analogizing the instant computational error to those cases which have permitted post-con-viction relief for errors in the computation of credit for jail time. 473 So. 2d at 844.
In State v. Whitfield, 487 So. 2d 1045 (Fla.1986), we held that a computational error in a sentencing guidelines score sheet could be raised on direct appeal even though a contemporaneous objection was not made at trial, where “the impact of the error was that the trial court departed from the sentencing guidelines in rule 3.701 without making the mandatorily written, clear and convincing reasons for departure.” At 1047. We also amended Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) in order to facilitate the correction of these computational errors at the trial court level. Id. at 1047. This amendment is dispositive of the issue before us, as it allows the trial court to correct, at any time, an incorrect calculation of a sentencing guidelines score sheet.
Accordingly, we approve the result reached by the district court below.1
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, McDonald, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur. . We agree with the district court that respondent is entitled to have his guidelines score sheet correctly calculated and, similarly, that the trial court should be given an opportunity to consider whether departure from the guidelines should be ordered. 473 So. 2d at 844.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (28 total)
-
Cheshire v. State, 568 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1990)…Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969), or our own case law that restricts the trial court on remand to its original error in the burglary sentencing. See Roberts v. State, 547 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1989); State v. Chaplin, 490 So. 2d 52 (Fla.1986). Double jeopardy does not guarantee a defendant the benefit of a judge’s good-faith mathematical or clerical errors. However, because of our own case law under the sentencing guidelines, we believe that the trial court now must resentence…
-
Doyal Powell Roberts v. State, 547 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1989)…argued that the situation is no different from that which occurs when a defendant successfully attacks all of the reasons for departure. The district court in the instant case rejected this contention and relied on our decision in State v. Chaplin, 490 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1986), and the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision in Waldron v. State, 529 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). It quoted with approval the following reasoning in Waldron: Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1987) requires resentencing wi…1 / 2
-
Lomont v. State, 506 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…is matter should have been raised at sentencing or on direct appeal and, therefore, may not be raised in a motion for postconviction relief. We believe this conclusion is correct notwithstanding the recent supreme court opinions in State v. Chaplin, 490 So. 2d 52 (Fla.1986), and State v. Whitfield, 487 So. 2d 1045 (Fla.1986). In Whitfield the supreme court amended rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, to permit a court to correct guideline scoresheet errors at any time. However, as pointed out…
Previewing 3 of 28 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Whitfield, 487 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1986)
- Chaplin v. State, 473 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Faheem Saleem Rasheed v. State, 449 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Chaplin v. State, 449 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)