JERRY CANTERBURY, 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.
Jerry Canterbury appealed his sentence for escape from the Leon County Detention Center, arguing the trial court improperly assessed legal constraint points on the sentencing scoresheet even though legal constraint is an essential element of the escape crime itself. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing because the erroneous scoresheet points reduced the recommended sentencing range by one cell, and the record did not clearly establish the sentence would have been the same without the error.
It is improper to assess legal constraint points to enhance a sentence imposed upon conviction for escape since legal constraint is an essential element of the crime. When a scoresheet error results in a reduced sentencing range of one or more cells, the sentence must be reversed for resentencing unless the appellate court is clearly convinced the defendant would have received the same sentence notwithstanding the error.
[1] A sentence for escape cannot be enhanced by assessing points for legal constraint, as legal constraint is an essential element of the crime of escape.
[2] A sentencing scoresheet error that results in a reduced sentencing range requires reversal for resentencing based upon a correctly calculated scoresheet.
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“since legal constraint is an essential element of the crime of escape, it is improper to assess legal constraint points to enhance a sentence imposed upon conviction for escape”
Establishes the core holding that essential elements of a crime cannot be used as sentencing enhancements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCanterbury pleaded nolo contendere to escape from the Leon County Detention Center. He had a stable work history and had been permitted to serve his c…
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 Constraint Points cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Chief Judge.
The appellant, Jerry Canterbury, appeals the sentence imposed after he pled nolo contendere to escape from the Leon County Detention Center. Appellant contends the trial court erred in imposing a sentence for escape based upon a scoresheet that assessed points for legal constraint, an essential element of the crime charged. We reverse.
The record reflects that appellant had a stable work history, and had been permitted to serve his county jail time at night so as to maintain his employment. The instant escape charge arose when appellant failed to report timely to the county jail. The state concedes that since legal constraint is an essential element of the crime of escape, it is improper to assess legal constraint points to enhance a sentence imposed upon conviction for escape. See Carnegie v. State, 564 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Brown v. State, 502 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Chenault v. State, 543 So. 2d 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 calculated scoresheet is essential for the proper exercise of the trial court’s sentencing discretion. “Only in circumstances where the appellate court is clearly convinced that the defendant would have received the same sentence notwithstanding the scoresheet error, such as where the sentence was imposed in accordance with a valid plea agreement, have the sentences been affirmed under the harmless error doctrine despite the erroneous score.” Sellers, 578 So. 2d at 341.
The trial court in this case would be authorized to resentence appellant in the same manner, based upon a scoresheet corrected by deletion of the twelve points erroneously assessed for legal constraint, if sentence were imposed at the maximum of the recommended sentencing range. Nevertheless, the deletion of those twelve points results in a one-cell reduction in the recommended sentencing range. We conclude the record in this case would not support a clear conviction that the trial court would impose the same sentence in the absence of the scoresheet error, within the contemplation of Sellers and Johnson.
Accordingly, the contested sentence imposed upon the escape conviction is vacated, and the cause is remanded for resentencing based upon a corrected scoresheet.
ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burrows v. State, 649 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…of 12-27 years. Where a guidelines seoresheet error results in a reduced sentencing range of one cell or more, the sentence must be reversed and the case remanded for resentenc-ing based upon a correctly calculated score-sheet. Canterbury v. State, 606 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Deparvine v. State, 603 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Only where a corrected seoresheet would place the defendant in the same cell or where the appellate court is clearly convinced that the defendant would have received the sa…
-
Dillingham v. Dillingham, 667 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…ies during the hearing [is] voidable on appeal.” Gligorijevic v. Gligorijevic, 427 So. 2d 1060, 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (reversing the portions of the circuit court’s order regarding child support and visitation rights). See also Wallace v. Wallace, 606 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (reversing the portion of the lower court’s order that required the former husband to bring the rent and utility payments current where such relief was not requested and evidence was not submitted on the issue); Rusher v. Rice, 5…
-
Hyman v. State, 744 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…ized by the scoresheet, had 18 community sanction violation points been correctly assessed. In such case, the only appropriate remedy is resentencing by the trial court. Burrows v. State, 649 So. 2d 902, 903 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Canterbury v. State, 606 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). REVERSED and REMANDED for correction of Hyman’s scoresheet and for re-sentencing. WOLF and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.…
Authorities Cited
- Carter v. State, 586 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1991)
- 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)
- Johnson v. State, 583 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Brown v. State, 502 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Gibbons v. State, 540 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- State v. Chenault, 543 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Carnegie v. State, 564 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)