LORENZO LEE FEASTER
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.
Lorenzo Lee Feaster appealed his sentences imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, arguing for a corrected sentencing scoresheet and a written probation revocation order. The court affirmed his sentence but remanded for correction of the scoresheet if erroneous, and found the probation revocation issue moot.
The court affirmed Feaster's sentence because it resulted from a negotiated plea and any scoresheet error had no effect on the sentence. However, the court remanded for the trial court to consider correcting the scoresheet if erroneous, consistent with prior precedent requiring accurate records. The probation revocation issue was rendered moot because the trial court subsequently entered a revocation order.
[1] A defendant is not entitled to relief based on an erroneous scoresheet if the sentence was the result of a negotiated plea and the scoresheet had no effect on the sentenc…
[2] A defendant is entitled to have a scoresheet corrected even if the error has no effect on the sentence imposed.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 Feaster's sentence was the result of a negotiated plea and the scoresheet had no effect on his sentence, we affirm his sentence.”
Establishes the core holding that negotiated plea sentences are not affected by scoresheet errors
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 2023, Feaster entered a global plea to felony counts in two cases in exchange for 36 months' probation with treatment. After probation violations w…
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 Scoresheet Error cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
Lorenzo Lee Feaster appeals the judgments and sentences entered against him after a negotiated plea, arguing that he is entitled to a corrected score sheet and that the trial court erred in failing to enter a written order revoking his probation. Because Feaster's sentence was the result of a negotiated plea and the scoresheet had no effect on his sentence, we affirm his sentence. We remand only for the purpose of completing a correct scoresheet if the trial court determines that the scoresheet is in error. Moreover, because the trial court has since entered an order revoking probation, Feaster's second issue on appeal is moot.
In 2023, Feaster entered a global plea to several counts in two pending felony cases in exchange for 36 months' probation with inpatient treatment. On January 22, 2024, a violation of probation was filed in one of Feaster's cases, alleging, inter alia, that Feaster failed to complete an inpatient residential treatment program and changed his residence without first procuring the consent of the probation officer. Three days later, an affidavit was filed in Feaster's other case alleging the same violations as in the previous affidavit but adding two new law violations.
On March 6, 2024, Feaster admitted to the violations in exchange for five years in the Department of Corrections in both cases. Defense counsel made no objection to the scoresheet and the court accepted Feaster's plea and sentenced him to five years' prison on the new law violations and five years' prison for violating probation, the sentences to run concurrently.
Feaster appealed his judgment and sentences, and his appointed counsel filed an Anders¹ brief. Feaster subsequently filed a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).
On January 14, 2025, the trial court entered an Amended Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Correct Sentencing Error, finding that because Feaster entered a negotiated plea, the scoresheet, even if incorrect, had no effect on his ultimate sentence. The court relied on two prior opinions from this Court, Ruff v. State, 840 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), and Poole v. State, 777 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
Accordingly, we affirm Feaster's sentence without prejudice to him seeking relief pursuant to rule 3.850. We further remand this matter only for the purpose of completing a correct scoresheet, if in error noting that the burden of corroborating a disputed scoresheet by competent and substantial evidence lies with the State. See Brown v. State, 695 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (citing Watson v. State, 591 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)). AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions.
BOATWRIGHT, J., concurs.
EISNAUGLE, J., concurs specially with opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Ruff v. State, 840 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Watson v. State, 591 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Poole v. State, 777 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Dubuis v. Sec. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 529 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Lanearis Taylor v. State, 832 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Allen v. Allen, 873 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Brown v. State, 695 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)