JOHN D. ANTUNOVICH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Antunovich appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, challenging his sentence and claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing due to the trial court's improper use of two separate scoresheets instead of one, but affirmed the denial of the ineffective assistance claim without prejudice for post-conviction relief.
The court held that it was error for the trial court to use two separate scoresheets in violation of Rule 3.701(d)(1), Fla.R.Crim.P., which requires only one scoresheet per defendant. The court reversed the sentence and remanded for resentencing with the firearm charge as the primary offense. The court affirmed the dismissal of the ineffective assistance claim without prejudice for future post-conviction relief.
[1] A trial court errs by preparing and relying upon two separate scoresheets for a single defendant when sentencing for multiple offenses.
[2] A defendant may not raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for the first time on direct appeal unless the factual basis for the claim is evident from the reco…
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“Rule 3.701(d)(1), Fla.R.Crim.P., provides that only one scoresheet shall be prepared for each defendant covering all offenses pending before the trial court for sentencing.”
Establishes the controlling rule that the trial court violated by using two scoresheets
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAntunovich was charged with possession of cocaine, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of less than 20 grams of cannabis, and pos…
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 Possession Of Cannabis cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
This is an appeal of a sentence entered following a conviction for possession of cocaine and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Antunovich contends that he was illegally sentenced by the trial court according to the sentencing guidelines, and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Antunovich was charged by information with possession of cocaine, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of less than 20 grams of cannabis and possession of drug paraphernalia. He pled nolo contendere to the first two counts and the State nol prossed the remaining charges.
On 4 June 1985, Antunovich appeared for sentencing and received a term of 30 months imprisonment under Count II, possession of a firearm, and three years of probation under Count I, possession of cocaine, ordered to be served upon the expiration of his prison term. In sentencing in this manner, the trial court relied upon two scoresheets.
Rule 3.701(d)(1), Fla.R.Crim.P., provides that only one scoresheet shall be prepared for each defendant covering all offenses pending before the trial court for sentencing. Rule 3.701(d)(3) indicates which single scoresheet is the correct one to be used. Accordingly, it was error for Antunovich to receive two sentences under two separate scoresheets, and we reverse and remand for resentencing in line with the scoresheet prepared with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon as the primary offense.
As to Antunovich’s second contention, the issue of adequacy of representation by counsel cannot properly be raised for the first time on direct appeal unless the facts on which the claim is based are evident on the record before the court. Stewart v. State, 420 So. 2d 862 (Fla.1982). We find Antimovich’s assertion that he was denied effective assistance of counsel due to lack of preparation by his attorney is not evident from the instant record. Therefore, we affirm on this issue without prejudice for Antunovich to raise the question again in a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.850, Fla.R.Crim.P. Affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part.
WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.