RONALD HARTSHORN
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 reversed a lower court's denial of a motion for resentencing. The defendant argued his sentence was based on an incorrect scoresheet, and the appellate court found the lower court should have treated his motion under a different rule, requiring either record attachment or an evidentiary hearing.
Yes, the appellate court held that the postconviction court should have treated Hartshorn's motion as filed under rule 3.850 because it was timely and under oath. The court reversed the denial and remanded for further proceedings under rule 3.850.
[1] A motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) alleging scoresheet error that is timely under rule 3.850(b) and sworn as required by rule 3.850 must be…
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“Because Hartshorn's motion was timely under rule 3.850 and was under oath as required by that rule, the postconviction court should have treated it as filed under rule 3.850.”
Establishes the appellate court's primary reason for reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRonald Hartshorn pleaded guilty and was sentenced to sixty-four months. He filed a motion alleging his scoresheet was incorrectly calculated, leading …
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 Motion For Resentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
STARGEL, Judge. Ronald Hartshorn appeals the order denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) seeking resentencing under a corrected scoresheet.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Hartshorn pleaded guilty to burglary of a structure and grand theft, and the trial court sentenced him to sixty-four months' imprisonment. He did not file a direct appeal, but less than a year after his judgment and sentence became final, he filed a sworn rule 3.800(a) motion alleging that his plea agreement called for the lowest permissible sentence under a correctly calculated scoresheet. He argued that the State, the court, and counsel incorrectly calculated his scoresheet, resulting in a longer sentence—sixty-four months—than would have been imposed under a correctly calculated scoresheet—51.15 months.
The postconviction court ordered the State to respond. The State agreed that the scoresheet was incorrectly calculated and that a correctly calculated scoresheet resulted in the lowest permissible sentence of 51.15 months. But the State argued that Hartshorn was not entitled to resentencing because he entered a plea to a sixty-four-month sentence which was greater than the previously calculated lowest permissible sentence of 63.9 months. In denying Hartshorn's motion, the postconviction court found that he was not entitled to relief under rule 3.800(a) because nothing on the plea form indicated that Hartshorn pleaded to a minimum guidelines sentence rather than to a term of months. The court did not consider Hartshorn's motion under rule 3.850.
Because Hartshorn's motion was timely under rule 3.850 and was under oath as required by that rule, the postconviction court should have treated it as filed under rule 3.850. See Brooks v. State, 969 So. 2d 238, 243 n.8 (Fla. 2007) (holding that when a rule 3.800(a) motion is filed within the time afforded by rule 3.850(b), "the court should treat a motion alleging scoresheet error as one filed under rule 3.850 and apply the would-have-been-imposed standard [of review]").
Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court's order and remand with instructions to treat Hartshorn's motion as filed under rule 3.850 and either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting Hartshorn's claim or hold an evidentiary hearing.
Reversed and remanded. KHOUZAM and SLEET, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.