JAMES HUGGINS, 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.
James Huggins appealed his sentencing on three grand theft charges, arguing the trial court erred in calculating his sentencing guidelines scoresheet. Although the court identified two scoring errors, it affirmed the sentence because correcting them would not change the recommended sentencing range.
Although the trial court made two scoring errors—counting two offenses as prior record rather than additional offenses and improperly adding points for legal status—the errors were harmless because correcting them would not change the recommended sentencing range, thus affirming the sentence is appropriate.
[1] When multiple offenses of the same degree are pending, only one need be scored as the primary offense for sentencing purposes.
[2] Offenses committed prior to the imposition of community control are not considered "prior restraint" for the purpose of scoring legal status at the time of the offense.
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“the "primary offense" is that which, when scored, recommends the most severe sanction”
Establishes the legal standard for identifying which offense to use as primary in multi-count sentencing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(3)
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHuggins was charged with grand theft in three separate cases. He pleaded nolo contendere in each case and was initially placed on two years' community…
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 Primary Offense Scoring cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
In three separate cases appellant was charged with grand theft. He pled nolo contendere in each case and was placed on two years’ community control in each, all three sentences to run concurrently. Affidavits were filed in each case charging violation of his community control, which appellant admitted. The scoresheet prepared reflected a presumptive guidelines sentence range of three and one-half to four and one-half years in prison, and the court sentenced appellant to four and one-half years in prison. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in scoring his guidelines scoresheet.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701 d. 3. provides that the “primary offense” is that which, when scored, recommends the most severe sanction. Since all three cases pending before the court were of the same degree, the sanction would be the same no matter which one was scored as the primary offense. Thus, to calculate the sentences for each case, it was only necessary to compute one of them on a scoresheet as the primary offense. However, the state concedes that the other two offenses of the same degree should have been counted as additional offenses rather than “prior record.” Another scoring error involved adding six points for “legal status at time of offense.” In fact, the three grand theft offenses were committed prior to appellant’s being placed on concurrent community control sentences and, thus, no points for “prior restraint” were appropriate. Be that as it may, it is unnecessary to remand the matter for resentencing because a correction of these errors would not eliminate enough points to take appellant out of the same recommended range. Leopard v. State, 491 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Accordingly, the sentences appealed from are affirmed.
ANSTEAD, J., and RIVKIND, LEONARD, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Louie Anthony Sellers v. State, 578 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…r has occurred in calculating the guidelines score and the corrected score nevertheless places the defendant in the same guidelines cell, the error is considered harmless. E.g., Guardado v. State, 562 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Huggins v. State, 537 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Cridland v. State, 522 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). However, when the deletion of improperly included points in the guidelines score results in a reduction of one or more cells, the sentence should be vacated and the cause rem…
-
Kelly v. State, 546 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…ce for grand theft. It is not necessary, however, to re-sentence the appellant since the recommended guidelines range remains the same after the points for the grand theft offense are removed from the appellant’s score-sheet. See Huggins v. State, 537 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). We find no merit in the appellant’s remaining contentions and, therefore, affirm the trial court in all other respects. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. CAMPBELL, C.J., and RYDER and SCHOON…
-
Abdullah Shabazz v. State, 674 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…calculated scoresheet. See Diaz v. State, 667 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Jaramillo v. State, 646 So. 2d 840, 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Sellers v. State, 578 So. 2d 339, 340 (Fla. 1st DCA), approved, 586 So. 2d 340 (Fla.1991); cf. Huggins v. State, 537 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). [*921] Accordingly, this cause is remanded for resentencing based upon a properly calculated scoresheet. STONE and KLEIN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Leopard v. State, 491 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)