GEORGE GRAHAM, 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.
Graham challenges his probation revocation sentence based on a scoresheet recalculation. The court reverses because the trial judge improperly considered a wholly new scoresheet that omitted prior convictions from the original, rather than merely correcting a calculation error on the scoresheet actually used at sentencing.
A trial judge may correct a miscalculated scoresheet at any time, but may not consider a wholly new scoresheet bearing little resemblance to the original scoresheet used at sentencing, particularly when an objection is interposed. The judge is limited to correcting arithmetical errors on the scoresheet actually presented, not addressing omissions of convictions not listed in the first place.
[1] A trial court may correct a miscalculated scoresheet at any time.
[2] A trial court cannot substitute a new scoresheet for the original at a probation revocation hearing if the original scoresheet did not contain an arithmetical error but r…
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“However, what happened in the case at bar was not, for example, an error in arithmetical addition of the numbers apparent from the four corners of the score-sheet. Much more than that occurred. Through some mix-up, the original score-sheet presented to the trial judge did not include several prior convictions at all.”
Establishes that the error was not a calculation mistake but complete omission of prior convictions from the original scoresheet
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt the original sentencing, the trial judge imposed probation based on a scoresheet. At a probation revocation hearing, the trial judge found Graham i…
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 Sentencing Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
At a probation revocation hearing, the trial court found the defendant in violation and, despite an objection, used a different scoresheet to calculate the sentence from the one used at the original sentencing at which the defendant had received probation. We reverse.
We agree that a trial judge can correct a miscalculated scoresheet at any time. Lathrop v. State, 521 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). However, what happened in the case at bar was not, for example, an error in arithmetical addition of the numbers apparent from the four corners of the score-sheet. Much more than that occurred. Through some mix-up, the original score-sheet presented to the trial judge did not include several prior convictions at all. In other words, the error was not a miscalculation apparent to any reviewer, it was a total failure to list other convictions in the first place.
We sympathize with the thought that a trial judge should have the ability to impose any sentence which it could lawfully have done originally, Davis v. Wainwright, 408 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and would affirm this cause absent an objection. See Dailey v. State, 488 So. 2d 532 (Fla.1986). However, an objection was interposed sub judice and we find it to be error to consider a whole new scoresheet bearing little resemblance to the original, as distinct from correcting an error made on that original. See Senior v. State, 502 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 511 So. 2d 299 (Fla.1987). There was simply no miscalculation on the original scoresheet as submitted to the trial judge, and it is too late to correct other errors now.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DOWNEY and LETTS, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., specially concurs with opinion.
ANSTEAD, Judge,
specially concurring.
I would certify the issue as to whether the trial court can use a corrected scoring sheet at a probation revocation hearing. Cf. Goene v. State, 552 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Roberts v. State, 644 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1994)…ffirmative act by the defendant. Manuel v. State, 582 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Harris v. State, 574 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA), cause dismissed, 581 So. 2d 1310 (Fla.1991); Pfeiffer v. State, 568 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Graham v. State, 559 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); but see Scherwitz v. State, 618 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 5th DCA) (relying on Roberts to hold that prior convictions omitted from original scoresheet can be considered upon violation of probation), review granted, 629 So. 2d 135 (Fla.19…1 / 4
-
Harris v. State, 574 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…ump for the violation of probation. We reverse the sentences because a trial court must use the original scoresheet when sentencing a defendant on a violation of probation. See Pfeiffer v. State, 568 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Graham v. State, 559 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The state acknowledges the Graham decision but asks this court to decline to follow it. The Pfeiffer and Graham opinions do not disclose the reasons that the prior convictions were not included on the original scoresheet. In th…
-
Roberts v. State, 611 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…v. Pentaude, 500 So. 2d 526 (Fla.1987). Thus, according to the defendant, the court’s failure to use the original scoresheet resulted in a sentence which exceeded the maximum allowed one-cell upward increase. The defendant cites to Graham v. State, 559 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) for the proposition that a trial court is without power to consider a new scoresheet, over objection, containing prior convictions completely omitted from the original. The contention then is that the defendant be sentenced under…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Rightmyer, 488 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1986)
- Crews v. State, 502 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Senior v. State, 502 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Davis v. Louie L. Wainwright, 408 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Goene v. State, 552 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Lathrop v. State, 521 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)