ROGER FRANK ARMONTROUT, 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.
Roger Armontrout appeals his conviction for grand theft in the second degree and his sentence. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence and remanded for resentencing due to errors in the sentencing scoresheet that were not properly adjudicated by the trial court.
The trial court erred by not requiring the state to corroborate the specifically disputed statements in the presentence investigation report. The conviction was affirmed, but the sentence was reversed and remanded for resentencing to allow the state an opportunity to corroborate the disputed facts.
[1] A trial court must require the state to corroborate disputed statements in a presentence investigation report when the defendant specifically challenges their accuracy.
[2] When scoring out-of-state convictions, the trial court must apply analogous or parallel Florida Statutes to determine the appropriate classification.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“This court has repeatedly held that when the defendant disputes the truth of specifically identified statements in a presentence investigation report the trial court must require that the state corroborate those statements.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that trial courts must allow the state to prove disputed sentencing facts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArmontrout was convicted by jury of grand theft in the second degree. At sentencing, Armontrout disputed three items on the presentence investigation …
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 Sentencing Scoresheet Error cases and more on FLexlaw
UPCHURCH, Chief Judge.
Roger Armontrout appeals a judgment of guilt and the sentence for grand theft in the second degree in violation of section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1985), imposed after jury trial.
As to the judgment of guilt, we find no error and affirm, but reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing. At sentencing, Armontrout alleged that three errors existed in the scoresheet.
First, a California offense was scored as a felony when it was actually a misdemeanor; second, he was not convicted for a misdemeanor offense of “burning things not subject to arson”; and third, he never went to court on another misdemeanor charge for assault. If error occurred on any one of these three issues, then Armontrout’s sentence would fall within the next lower range. The state requested an opportunity to prove the prior convictions that were contested, however, the trial court took it upon itself to refute defendant’s allegations and ruled that if it erred in sentencing then Armontrout would not be resentenced after appeal because he would automatically receive a four and one-half year sentence.
This court has repeatedly held that when the defendant disputes the truth of specifically identified statements in a presentence investigation report the trial court must require that the state corroborate those statements. Morris v. State, 483 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Robbins v. State, 482 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Vandeneynden v. State, 478 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
Armontrout contends that he never went to court on the assault charge, however, the presentence investigation clearly shows that he was adjudicated guilty of disorderly conduct which is also a misdemeanor. On the second point, Ar-montrout asserted that he had never been convicted of the “burning things not subject to arson” charge. The state admits that it cannot dispute the assertion relating to this charge and states that if reversal is required then they should have an opportunity to corroborate the presentence investigation allegation. The third issue is whether the California offense for taking a motor vehicle was properly scored as a felony. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(5)(a)(5) provides that out of state convictions shall be scored by analogous or parallel Florida Statutes. In Florida the taking of a motor vehicle is a felony under section 812.014(2), Florida Statutes (1985).
At sentencing, the state argued that if Armontrout was given one year imprisonment and five years probation in California for the unlawful taking of the motor vehicle then the sentence would make the crime a felony.
The trial court agreed and stated that the theft of a motor vehicle is treated in all jurisdictions as a felony unless it is an attempt or an unauthorized use charge. The presentence investigation report does not reflect whether the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle was a felony or misdemeanor. The state also argues that since the trial court did not score several other felonies in Armontrout’s record that any sentencing error would be harmless.
However, we cannot determine from the record why the court did not consider or score these other felonies. We therefore remand for resentencing. The state may then corroborate the disputed scoring and any other felonies not previously scored but properly includible.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED for resentencing.
COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Forehand v. State, 524 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…uld be scored as a conviction under the analogous Florida statute. See Rotz v. State, 521 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Samples v. State, 516 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Frazier v. State, 515 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Armontrout v. State, 503 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Noland v. State, 489 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Robbins v. State, 482 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Rodriguez v. State, 472 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Arquilla v. State, 464 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). But see W…
-
Bailey v. State, 559 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…misdemeanor. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(5)(a)(3). To compare the statutes, the court must examine the elements of the out-of-state offense. Forehand v. State, 524 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), approved, 537 So. 2d 103 (Fla.1989); Armontrout v. State, 503 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). We note that there is no record objection to the scoring of the New York offense as a felony; thus, the state was not given the opportunity to substantiate the points. We find no merit in Bailey’s claim that the 120 points asse…
-
Rotz v. State, 521 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…remand for resentenc-ing for either substantiation of the appropriate Indiana statute1 to be analogized to Florida law or rescoring as a third rather than second degree felony to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. See Armontrout v. State, 503 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Robbins v. State, 482 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); and Vandeneynden v. State, 478 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Assuming that the appropriate Indiana robbery statute is the same as that reproduced in Brown v. State of Indi…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Vandeneynden v. State, 478 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Morris v. State, 483 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Robbins v. State, 482 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)