JENNIFER UPTON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
The appellate court reviewed a trial court's denial of a motion to correct sentencing error. Although the State conceded the scoresheet was erroneously calculated, the court affirmed the sentence, finding the trial court would have imposed the same sentence even with a correct scoresheet.
The appellate court held that while the scoresheet was erroneously calculated, the trial court's denial of the motion to correct sentencing error was not an abuse of discretion because the record conclusively shows the same sentence would have been imposed.
[1] A scoresheet calculation error does not require resentencing if the record conclusively demonstrates that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence using a cor…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“if the judge chooses not to impose a habitual offender sentence, the judge must still adhere to the sentencing guidelines.”
Establishes the principle that even when not imposing a habitual offender sentence, guideline requirements must be followed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant challenged the trial court's denial of her motion to correct sentencing error, arguing the scoresheet used was erroneous. The State conceded…
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 Would-Have-Been-Imposed Test cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of her timely motion to correct sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). On appeal, the State concedes that the scoresheet was erroneously calculated. We agree with Appellant that the trial court did not actually sentence her as a habitual felony offender (HFO), thus, was compelled to follow guideline requirements. See Geohagen v. State, 639 So. 2d 611, 612 (Fla. 1994) (“[I]f the judge chooses not to impose a habitual offender sentence, the judge must still adhere to the sentencing guidelines. . . . By virtue of sentencing a habitual offender to a more lenient sentence than that required by section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1991), the judge has necessarily decided that a habitual offender sentence is not necessary.”); Walker v. State, 473 So. 2d 694, 698
(Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (holding that that HFO sentencing of a first degree felony requires a sentence of life imprisonment and that any term of years HFO sentence on a first degree felony was error), disapproved of on other grounds, Wong v. State, 212 So. 3d 351, 358–59 (Fla. 2017).
The question remains whether the record conclusively shows that the same sentence would have been imposed using a correct scoresheet. See State v. Anderson, 905 So. 2d 111, 112 (Fla. 2005) (“Under [the would-have-been-imposed test applicable here], a scoresheet error requires resentencing unless the record conclusively shows that the same sentence would have been imposed using a correct scoresheet.”). Here, we find the trial court would have imposed the same sentence if a correct scoresheet had been used. The trial court was clearly operating under the belief that it was imposing an HFO sentence without regard for guideline requirements and that the ten-year term chosen was the term necessary to serve all criminological considerations. Further, the ten-year sentence imposed was consistent with the request of the State and consistent with similarly situated co-defendants in the case. These factors confirm that the sentence was not based in any substantial part on the minimum required sentence under the guidelines, regardless of whether that minimum was seven and one-half years or something slightly less.
AFFIRMED.
BILBREY, KELSEY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Anderson, 905 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2005)
- Geohagen v. State, 639 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1994)
- Walker v. State, 473 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Wong v. State, 212 So. 3d 351 (Fla. 2017)