DANNY HAMMOND, 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.
Danny Hammond appealed the trial court's summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing the sentencing guidelines scoresheet contained calculation errors. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding apparent scoresheet error in the legal status points calculation that required the trial court to address the motion on the merits rather than summarily denying it.
The court reversed the trial court's order summarily denying the motion, holding that apparent scoresheet error in calculating legal constraint status points required the trial court to address the motion on the merits rather than summarily denying it. The court remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the plea agreement justified any departure from the corrected guideline sentence.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is the appropriate vehicle to challenge an alleged illegal sentence based…
[2] A court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it or an incorrect calculation made by it in a sentencing guidelines scoresheet.
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“A motion to correct illegal sentence, pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(a), is the appropriate vehicle to attack an alleged illegal sentence based on scoresheet error.”
Establishes the proper procedural mechanism for challenging 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 intelligenceHammond filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), alleging errors in the scoresheet calc…
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 Legal Status Points cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Chief Judge.
This appeal is taken from a trial court order summarily denying appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The motion alleges error in the scoresheet calculation with respect to scoring of additional offenses, legal status, and victim injury. We reverse.
A motion to correct illegal sentence, pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(a), is the appropriate vehicle to attack an alleged illegal sentence based on scoresheet error. Ellis v. State, 538 So. 2d 118, 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Rule 3.800(a) provides: “A court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it or an incorrect calculation made by it in a sentencing guidelines scoresheet.” Scoresheet error which results in a de facto departure sentence is reviewable without a contemporaneous objection, where the error is apparent from the four corners of the record. Merchant v. State, 509 So. 2d 1101 (Fla.1987). See also Forehand v. State, 537 So. 2d 103, 105 (Fla.1989); State v. Whitfield, 487 So. 2d 1045, 1046 (Fla.1986); Ellis v. State, 538 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Johnson v. State, 525 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
As a general rule, despite score-sheet error, a negotiated plea agreement is binding, and is sufficient to justify departure from the recommended guideline sentence without any stated reasons for departure. White v. State, 531 So. 2d 711 (Fla.1988); Yukanovitz v. State, 547 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Hicks v. State, 559 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Zimmerman v. State, 554 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
In the instant case, error in the calculation of legal status points on the guidelines scoresheet is apparent from the face of the record. Appellant’s legal constraint score was calculated improperly by multiplying the scoresheet legal constraint status points by the number of new offenses. Legal constraint status points are to be assessed only once, even if there are one or more offenses at conviction. Flowers v. State, 586 So. 2d 1058 (Fla.1991). In addition, the record suggests the existence of other errors in the scoresheet calculation, but such error cannot be determined on the record provided to this court.
Ordinarily, scoresheet error of this nature would require reversal for resentencing based on a corrected scoresheet. However, a letter attached to the order denying relief suggests that appellant stipulated to a thirty-five year sentence in return for an agreement not to be sentenced as an habitual offender. In view of the scoresheet error readily apparent on the face of the record, the trial court erred in summarily denying appellant’s motion to correct sentence.
Accordingly, the order denying relief is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
ERVIN, J., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanders v. State, 621 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…time of sentencing.13 However, the record indicates Sanders and his counsel agreed the prior record and its scoring was accurate. It is too late at this point to raise such issues for errors not apparent on the face of the record. Hammond v. State, 591 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). As to subsequent events which may have reduced the score for one or two crimes included in Sanders’ prior record score, any reduction would be de minimus, and likely not drop Sanders into a lower sentencing bracket. In view of o…
-
State v. Williams, 667 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1996)…; Casmay v. State, 569 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Hicks v. State, 559 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). . First DCA: See Reynolds v. State, 598 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Wolf v. State, 595 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Hammond v. State, 591 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); but see Cecil v. State, 596 So. 2d 461, 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Second DCA: See Long v. State, 540 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); but see State v. Esbenshade, 493 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Fifth DCA: See Brooks v. State, 6…
-
Gentile v. State, 673 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…Boerstler v. State, 622 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (sentence is not illegal due to scoresheet error where plea agreement does not reflect that plea was conditioned on imposition of a specific sentence being within guidelines); Hammond v. State, 591 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (negotiated plea is binding despite scoresheet error and is sufficient to justify departure without written reasons). Moreover, even if the scoresheet errors were corrected as the defendant urges, his sentences would still not be…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Whitfield, 487 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1986)
- Flowers v. State, 586 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1991)
- Forehand v. State, 537 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1989)
- Merchant v. State, 509 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 1987)
- Johnson v. State, 525 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- White v. State, 531 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1988)
- Cordon v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 559 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Yukanovitz v. State, 547 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Zimmerman v. State, 554 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Grover Cleveland Ellis v. State, 538 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)