BOBBY L. REASE, 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.
Bobby Rease appealed a denial of his Rule 3.850 motion challenging his sentence, arguing the trial court erred by failing to prepare a sentencing guidelines scoresheet. The court affirmed the denial but without prejudice, finding the motion facially insufficient because it failed to allege facts later presented in the reply brief.
The motion was cognizable under Rule 3.850 but facially insufficient because it failed to allege facts and arguments that were only presented in the reply brief. These allegations cannot be considered for the first time on appeal.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief is facially insufficient if it does not allege facts and arguments that were presented to the trial court.
[2] An appellate court will not consider for the first time on appeal allegations not presented to the trial court.
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“it was error for the trial court to impose sentence without having a scoresheet prepared”
Statement of Rease's primary contention in the motion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRease was sentenced to ten years incarceration. The trial court claimed the sentence was stipulated to by both parties and that a scoresheet had been …
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 Guidelines Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Bobby L. Rease filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 contending that it was error for the trial court to impose sentence without having a scoresheet prepared. The trial court denied relief stating:
The court having reviewed the records pertaining hereto finds that the sentence imposed was stipulated to by the State and the Defense at which time the score-sheet had been prepared and was available to all parties concerned at the time of sentencing.
(R. 23). The portion of the transcript attached to the order does not reflect that appellant agreed to the imposition of ten years incarceration, but only that he agreed to a guidelines sentence on the assumption that the scoresheet calculation called for ten years. No scoresheet was attached to the final order, however, and a letter to appellant from his trial counsel states that a guidelines’ scoresheet was never prepared.
In his motion, Rease did not allege that the lack of a scoresheet resulted in an illegal sentence, he merely alleged that the trial court erred in not having a scoresheet available at sentencing. It was not until Rease filed his reply brief, in response to the state’s contention that he failed to show his sentence was incorrectly calculated and resulted in the imposition of a longer sentence, that he alleged that he was prejudiced by the lack of a guidelines’ scoresheet. In his reply brief Rease argues that, based on a properly calculated scoresheet, his sentence should have been in the 5¾⅛ to 7 years range instead of 10 years, so that he is in fact serving a longer sentence than he should be under the guidelines.
Appellant’s motion is cognizable under rule 3.850, but is facially insufficient because it does not allege the facts and arguments contained in the reply brief. Since these allegations were never presented to the trial court we will not consider them for the first time on appeal. The order denying appellant’s 3.850 motion is therefore affirmed without prejudice to appellant’s filing a proper motion containing allegations sufficient to satisfy the requirements of that rule.
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, C.J., and JOANOS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.