WILLIAM SONNY JOHNSON, 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.
William Johnson appealed his five-and-one-half-year sentence for armed robbery, challenging the trial court's failure to require corroborating evidence when he disputed a prior grand larceny conviction used in calculating his sentencing guidelines scoresheet. The First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for resentencing, finding that a correct scoresheet calculation is essential to establishing a valid base for the trial court's sentencing discretion.
The court held that the trial court erred in failing to require corroborating evidence for the disputed grand larceny conviction, and the case must be reversed and remanded for resentencing with an opportunity for the state to provide such corroboration. The court rejected Johnson's challenge to the victim injury points, holding that he does not escape responsibility for victim injury merely because he was not the one who actually struck the victim.
[1] A trial court must ensure the accuracy of a defendant's scoresheet at resentencing, particularly when the defendant disputes specific prior convictions.
[2] The state bears the burden of corroborating the accuracy of a defendant's scoresheet when the defendant challenges its calculation.
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“A correct calculation of the scoresheet resulting in a correct minimum-maximum sentence range is essential to establish a valid base for the trial court's exercise of discretion in determining an appropriate sentence under the guidelines.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that guideline scoresheets must be correctly calculated to properly constrain and inform sentencing discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson was sentenced to five and one-half years for armed robbery. His sentencing guidelines scoresheet included points for a prior grand larceny con…
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 Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
Appellant appeals his sentence of five and one-half years for armed robbery, contending that his guidelines scoresheet was improperly calculated. Because the trial court failed to require the state to produce corroborating evidence when appellant disputed one of his convictions for grand larceny which was scored as part of his prior record, we must reverse and remand for resentencing. Vance v. State, 545 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 551 So. 2d 463 (Fla.1989); and Baker v. State, 493 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). On remand, the state will be permitted to furnish corroborating evidence of the prior conviction challenged. If the challenged grand larceny conviction is not verified, appellant shall be resentenced accordingly. Spann v. State, 550 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
In its brief, the state acknowledges that the failure to require corroborating proof in this circumstance was error, but nevertheless contends that the error was harmless, because reduction of appellant’s scoresheet total by eleven points (for the grand larceny conviction), though reducing appellant’s recommended range to the next lower cell, still results in a permitted range of two and one-half years to five and one-half years, and appellant’s sentence falls within the permitted range for the reduced point total.
However, this court recently rejected a similar argument in Sellers v. State, 578 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). A correct calculation of the scoresheet resulting in a correct minimum-maximum sentence range is essential to establish a valid base for the trial court’s exercise of discretion in determining an appropriate sentence under the guidelines. Id. at 341. We are unable to say that in the event the state cannot provide verifica tion of the challenged grand larceny conviction upon remand, that the trial court, upon being apprised of the correct cell, would nevertheless impose the same sentence, even though the sentence of five and one-half years falls within the permitted range of the correct cell.
However, we have rejected appellant’s further contention that points for victim injury were improperly scored. The victim was injured when she was hit in the face with a firearm carried by one of appellant’s companions. Although the jury found that appellant did not have the firearm in his possession, he was nevertheless a participant in the armed robbery, and he does not escape responsibility for victim injury simply because he was not the one who actually struck the victim. Clifford v. State, 518 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 525 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1988) (victim injury points properly scored where defendant was not the actual perpetrator of the sexual batteries, but aided and abetted his codefendant’s commission of the offenses); Harris v. State, 513 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (points for victim injury were properly assessed when the defendant was convicted of felony murder, even though the evidence established that he was not the trigger man).
Morgan v. State, 534 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), upon which appellant relies, is distinguishable because the defendant in that case was acquitted of aggravated battery arising out of an incident in which an officer was hit with a flashlight by his companion. The only injury received by the officer resulted from the blow with the flashlight.
REVERSED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.
JOANOS, C.J., and BARFIELD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deparvine v. State, 603 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…appellate court is unable to say that the trial court, upon being apprised of the correct cell, would nevertheless impose the same sentence even though it falls within the permitted range of the correct cell, reversal is required. Johnson v. State, 583 So. 2d 386, 386-87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). A perusal of the sentencing transcript yields no indication of the trial court’s possible action “upon being apprised of the correct cell.” We therefore vacate the sentence imposed herein, and remand for resentencing on…
-
Stepps v. State, 675 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…(Supp.1994). The use of this scoresheet altered the applicable guidelines range for a nondeparture sentence, and requires resentencing with a proper guidelines scoresheet. E.g., Gregory v. State, 666 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Johnson v. State, 583 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The sentence is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded. MINER, ALLEN and MICKLE, JJ., concur.…
-
Canterbury v. State, 606 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…d 1314 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Further, where a guidelines score-sheet error results in a reduced sentencing range of one or more cells, the sentence must be reversed for resentencing based upon a correctly calculated scoresheet. See Johnson v. State, 583 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Sellers v. State, 578 So. 2d 339, 341 (Fla. 1st DCA), approved, 586 So. 2d 340 (Fla.1991); Gibbons v. State, 540 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). This general rule is premised upon the guidelines policy that a correctly calculate…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Louie Anthony Sellers v. State, 578 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Fernandez v. Efigenia Nancy Fernandez, 578 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Baker v. State, 493 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Vance v. State, 545 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Clifford v. State, 518 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Harris v. State, 513 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Morgan v. State, 534 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Vincent v. Hamilton, 550 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Spann v. State, 550 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)