CEDRIC ARMSTRONG
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.
A scoresheet error claim raised in a timely rule 3.800(a) motion must be addressed on the merits, with harmless error determined by whether the record conclusively shows the trial court would have imposed the same sentence using a correct scoresheet.
[1] A scoresheet error claim raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion that is timely under rule 3.850(b) must be addressed on the merits and evaluated under the would-have-been-impos…
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“for purposes of determining harmless error, the court should treat a motion alleging scoresheet error as one filed under rule 3.850 and apply the would-have-been-imposed standard.”
The court citing Brooks v. State, 969 So. 2d 238, 243 n.8 (Fla. 2007), establishing the standard for reviewing scoresheet errors in rule 3.800(a) motions.
Armstrong pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine in March 2020 and was sentenced to community control. In November 2020, after revocation, he was sen…
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 Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Frederick P. Mercurio, Judge. Cedric Armstrong, pro se. PER CURIAM. Cedric Armstrong appeals from the order summarily denying his motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand for the postconviction court to address the claim of scoresheet error raised in point five of Mr. Armstrong's motion; we affirm the order in all other respects. The summary record reflects that on March 16, 2020, Mr. Armstrong entered a plea to possession of cocaine in case number 2019-
CF-4008.
On April 30, 2020, the trial court sentenced him to one year and one day of community control.
On November 20, 2020, the trial court revoked his community control, as well as his probation imposed for convictions in two 2017 cases. The court sentenced him to 42.675 months in prison, the lowest permissible sentence pursuant to Mr. Armstrong's Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet. Mr. Armstrong filed his rule 3.800(a) motion on January 20, 2022. In the handwritten points four and five, he raised two claims of scoresheet error.1 Armstrong filed his rule 3.800(a) motion within the time afforded by rule 3.850(b), and the motion contains an oath that meets the requirements of rule 3.850(c) and (n).
In Brooks v. State, 969 So. 2d 238, 243 n.8 (Fla. 2007), the supreme court directed that when a claim1 Mr. Armstrong raised three additional claims. Two are not cognizable in motions filed under rule 3.800(a) or rule 3.850, and the third, which appears to challenge the trial court's jurisdiction, is conclusively refuted by the record attachments.
of scoresheet error is raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion that would be timely under rule 3.850(b), "for purposes of determining harmless error, the court should treat a motion alleging scoresheet error as one filed under rule 3.850 and apply the would-have-been-imposed standard." Accordingly, on remand, the postconviction court shall determine whether the assessment of 2.4 points for the conviction for possession of diazepam was error and, if so, whether "the record conclusively shows that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence using a correct scoresheet." Id. at 241. Reversed and remanded. SILBERMAN, SLEET, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.