RAYMOND EARL HEMBREE, 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.
Raymond Earl Hembree appeals his convictions for grand theft and fleeing a police officer. The court affirms his convictions but reverses his sentences because they were based on an inaccurate sentencing guidelines scoresheet that miscalculated points for prior category six felony offenses.
The court affirmed Hembree's convictions for grand theft and fleeing a police officer but reversed and remanded the sentences because the amended scoresheet contained apparent errors in calculating points for prior category six felony offenses, resulting in an incorrect presumptive sentencing range.
[1] A defendant's failure to object to an amended scoresheet does not preclude an appeal if the amended scoresheet contains an apparent error on its face.
[2] A scoresheet must reflect additional points for each prior category six felony conviction, in addition to points for the prior record in general.
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“The appellant has the right to be sentenced based upon a correct scoresheet. Since he was sentenced under an obviously incorrect scoresheet, we must reverse and remand for resentencing.”
Establishes the fundamental right to sentencing under an accurate guidelines scoresheet and the court's obligation to reverse when errors are apparent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHembree was found guilty by jury of grand theft and fleeing a police officer. At sentencing, the trial court initially presented a scoresheet reflecti…
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 Prior Felony Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Acting Chief Judge.
The appellant, Raymond Earl Hembree, challenges the judgments and sentences imposed upon him after he was found guilty of grand theft and fleeing a police officer. We find no error in connection with the appellant’s convictions and, accordingly, affirm the judgments. We find, however, that the appellant’s sentences were based upon an inaccurate guidelines scoresheet. We, therefore, reverse the sentences and remand for resentencing.
After a jury found the appellant guilty of grand theft and fleeing a police officer, the trial court adjudicated him guilty of those charges. At the appellant’s sentencing hearing, a scoresheet reflecting ninety-three points and a presumptive guidelines sentencing range of four and one-half to five and one-half years imprisonment was presented to the court. When the appellant objected to the scoresheet, the trial court amended it to reflect a total of seventy-six points and a presumptive guidelines sentencing range of three and one-half to four and one-half years of imprisonment.
The trial court subsequently sentenced the appellant to a four and one-half year term of imprisonment on the grand theft charge, and to a concurrent one year term of imprisonment on the fleeing a police officer charge. This timely appeal followed.
Since the amended scoresheet reflects an apparent error on its face, the appellant’s failure to object after the score-sheet was amended does not foreclose his right to appeal. See Dailey v. State, 488 So. 2d 532 (Fla.1986).
The appellant was sentenced for a category six offense. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(c).
His scoresheet, therefore, was required to reflect five additional points for each prior category six felony conviction, in addition to points for his prior record in general. See Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.701(d)(15).
The amended score-sheet contains twenty points for four prior category six offenses. In listing the appellant’s prior record, however, the scoresheet reflects only three prior felony convictions. Assuming that the three prior felony convictions were all category six offenses, the subtotal for this section of the scoresheet should not have exceeded fifteen points.
Additionally, if one of the felonies was not a category six offense, and there is some indication in the record that such is the case, the subtotal for prior category six felony convictions would be ten points, and the appellant’s corresponding total guidelines score would be sixty-six points. Such a score would place the appellant in a lower presumptive guidelines range.
The appellant has the right to be sentenced based upon a correct scoresheet. Since he was sentenced under an obviously incorrect scoresheet, we must reverse and remand for resentencing. See Fla.R.Crim. P. 3.701(d)(1); Patterson v. State, 511 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). At resentencing, a new scoresheet must be prepared and the court should add only five additional points to the scoresheet for each prior category six felony conviction.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
LEHAN and THREADGILL, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Erickson v. State, 565 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…e trial court must have the benefit of an accurately prepared scoresheet. Dawson v. State, 532 So. 2d 89, 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). See Ratushinak v. State, 517 So. 2d 749, 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 525 So. 2d 880 (1988); Hembree v. State, 519 So. 2d 1138, 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). This requirement applies even if the trial court expresses an intention to impose the maximum statutory sentence at the sentencing hearing. See Davis v. State, 493 So. 2d 82, 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The rationale for the ru…
-
Forehand v. State, 524 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…of defendant’s sentence was determinable from the record); Walker v. State, 462 So. 2d 452 (Fla.1985) (trial court’s failure to make findings of fact before sentencing defendant as a habitual offender was apparent from the record); Hembree v. State, 519 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (score-sheet contained an obvious error where one portion of scoresheet contained a reference to four prior felony convictions while another portion of the scoresheet listed only a total of three prior felony convictions); Brown v…
-
Fernandez v. State, 665 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…entenced based on more than the probation violation, but that the scoresheet does not reflect this. We find that the record is insufficient to support the defendant’s sentence. Roberson v. State, 555 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Hembree v. State, 519 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We therefore vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for resen-tencing upon a proper scoresheet. Reversed and remanded with directions.…
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
- THE Florida BAR v. Rightmyer, 488 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1986)
- Tampa Springs Dev. Co., Inc. v. Heinlein, 511 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)