JOCILYN PIRE, 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.
The court affirmed a three-year jail sentence for violation of probation but remanded to correct the sentencing guidelines scoresheet, holding that while the trial judge erred in allowing the state to add points for legal restraint, the error was harmless because the sentence fell within the permitted range under either scoresheet.
Although the trial judge erred in allowing the state to add points for legal restraint to the scoresheet, the error was harmless because the sentence imposed fell within the permitted guidelines range under both the incorrect and corrected scoresheets.
[1] A sentencing guidelines scoresheet may be corrected for mathematical miscalculations but not for omissions of points, and error in allowing such an omission to be added i…
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“scoresheet can be corrected for miscalculations, but not for omissions”
Court citing Graham v. State regarding permissible scoresheet corrections
The state changed the sentencing scoresheet at the time of sentencing for a probation violation to add points for legal restraint that had been mistak…
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 Guidelines Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s three year jail sentence for violation of probation, but remand with directions to the trial judge to correct the guidelines scoresheet.
At sentencing, the state changed the prepared scoresheet because the scoresheet used to place appellant on probation mistakenly omitted points for legal restraint. The trial judge used the changed score-sheet to sentence appellant for the violation of probation.
It was error to allow the state to change the scoresheet and add points for legal restraint. See Graham v. State, 559 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (scoresheet can be corrected for miscalculations, but not for omissions). However, such error was harmless because under either scoresheet appellant's sentence would be the same. The “bump-up” provision for a sentence imposed after a revocation of probation can place a defendant in the next higher cell (guidelines range). Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701 d.14. The “bumped-up” cell (guidelines range) of the correct scoresheet and the cell (guidelines range) of the incorrect scoresheet are the same and the sentence imposed was within the permitted range of those cells (guidelines ranges).
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ruland v. State, 614 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…ines range would remain the same, and any error here was harmless. Davis v. State, 565 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Vandeneynden v. State, 478 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); see Peeples v. State, 575 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Pire v. State, 575 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Affirmed.…
-
Ledesma v. State, 958 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…higher guidelines cell without stating reasons. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.701(d)(14). Thus, the court could have imposed the 27-year sentence in this case when the automatic one-cell bump up is considered, and the sentence is not illegal. See Pire v. State, 575 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). The record in this case is abundantly clear that the court would have imposed the same sentence if the scoresheet error had not occurred. State v. Anderson, 905 So. 2d 111 (Fla.2005). The court rejected the state’s recommendati…
Authorities Cited
- Graham v. State, 559 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)