JESSE ROGERS BEASLEY, 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.
Jesse Beasley appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct sentence, arguing that his sentencing scoresheet improperly included points for victim injury in violation of Karchesky v. State. The Florida District Court of Appeal reverses and remands, holding that Beasley made a prima facie showing of entitlement to resentencing with a corrected scoresheet, but the trial court may still consider whether Beasley is estopped from raising the issue.
Beasley made a prima facie showing of entitlement to resentencing using a corrected scoresheet, and the scoresheet error may be raised via Rule 3.800(a). However, on remand, the trial court must determine whether actual victim injury occurred and may also consider whether Beasley is estopped from raising the Karchesky issue based on the plea agreement.
[1] A motion to correct sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) may be used to raise scoresheet errors related to victim injury points.
[2] A defendant may be estopped from raising a scoresheet error on a motion to correct sentence if the error was part of a plea agreement and the state relied on the original…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Beasley has made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to resentencing using a corrected scoresheet.”
Establishes that Beasley met the threshold requirement for resentencing relief based on the scoresheet error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBeasley negotiated a plea to numerous sex offenses and is serving a split sentence of thirty years in prison followed by ten years probation. The sent…
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
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
Upon consideration of the appellant’s motion for rehearing filed on July 31, 1992, it is ORDERED that the motion for rehearing is granted. The opinion filed on July 22, 1992, is withdrawn, and the attached opinion is substituted for it.
PER CURIAM.
Jesse Beasley appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct sentence. We reverse.
The motion is based on Karchesky v. State, 591 So. 2d 930 (Fla.1992). Having negotiated a plea to numerous sex offenses, Beasley is serving a split sentence of thirty years in prison, followed by ten years probation. The recommended sentence under sentencing guidelines was life in prison. However, that recommendation stems in part from the improper addition of scoresheet points for “victim injury.” Deletion of these points, Beasley asserts, would result in a recommended sentence of no more than seventeen years.
Our recent opinion in Morris, et al. v. State, 605 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) [17 F.L.W. D2091], is controlling. There, we concluded that the Karchesky problem involves the sort of “scoresheet error” that may be raised via Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In the present case Beasley has made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to resentencing using a corrected scoresheet.
This does not necessarily mean that the trial court must reduce Beasley’s sentence after remand. First of all, our opinion in Morris requires the trial court to determine whether actual victim injury, rather than mere “contact,” occurred, and to score such injury as warranted. Second, Beasley may not have been prejudiced by the incorrect scoresheet. When entering his plea Beasley agreed to the specific length of the sentence. Although the plea form states “this is a below guidelines plea,” it is not clear that downward departure was an essential component of the agreement. Cf. Johnson v. State, 523 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Rather, this notation more likely was intended only to explain why the trial court was not bound by the guideline recommendation. Certain of the charges initially were filed as capital felonies, then reduced when Beasley agreed to plead. This quid pro quo on the part of the state would justify even an upward departure. Orsi v. State, 515 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Had the state known that the guidelines called for only 17 years (assuming Beasley’s calculations are correct), it is debatable whether a “below guidelines” plea would have been offered. Accordingly, after remand the trial court may also consider the question whether Beasley is es-topped from raising the Karchesky issue.
Reversed.
HALL, A.C.J., and PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Royce Glenn Harper v. State, 632 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…ieiv denied, 623 So. 2d 494 (Fla.1993); Boland v. State 613 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 624 So. 2d 268 (Fla.1993); State v. Stone, 608 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Wallen v. State, 606 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Beasley v. State, 605 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), review denied, 614 So. 2d 503 (Fla.1993); Fowler v. State, 605 So .2d 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Hood v. State, 603 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Goodwin v. State, 600 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Sanchez v. State, 600 So. 2d…
-
Barnes v. State, 661 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…e of the sentencing guidelines. When an agreed sentence is based on a scoresheet which includes improperly scored victim injury points, the case must be reversed and remanded. See Morris v. State, 605 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Beasley v. State, 605 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). On remand, unless the case files and records conclusively demonstrate that Barnes is not entitled to relief, the court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing. If the court again concludes that summary denial is proper, it must att…
-
Master v. State, 637 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…ent documents to support its order or to conduct an evidentiary hearing. REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. ZEHMER, C.J., and KAHN and BENTON, JJ., concur. . The trial court relied for this ruling on the decisions in Beasley v. State, 605 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), and Morris v. State, 605 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). See also Boerstler v. State, 622 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).…
Authorities Cited
- Karchesky v. State, 591 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 1992)
- Silas v. Morris, 605 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Roberts, 515 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Orsi v. State, 515 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Johnson v. State, 523 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)