ANTHONY ROBERTS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Anthony Roberts appeals his nine-year sentence imposed upon violation of probation, arguing that the trial court improperly used a corrected sentencing scoresheet containing previously omitted prior convictions, resulting in a three-cell sentence increase rather than the permitted one-cell maximum. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirms the sentence, holding that a defendant should not benefit from judicial errors in the original scoresheet, and certifies a conflict with Fourth District precedent.
The trial court properly used the corrected scoresheet, and the resulting sentence is affirmed. A defendant should not be permitted to benefit from judicial errors in the original scoresheet by escaping lawful punishment, and the one-cell limitation on sentence increases does not apply when resentencing is triggered by probation violation rather than sentencing for the same conduct.
[1] A defendant is not entitled to the benefit of a judicial error in a sentencing scoresheet that mistakenly omits prior convictions.
[2] A trial court may use a corrected sentencing scoresheet upon a probation violation, even if the original scoresheet contained errors.
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“Neither the rules nor the substantive law justifies a defendant receiving the largesse of a judicial error.”
Establishes the core principle that a defendant cannot benefit from erroneous omissions in a sentencing scoresheet.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoberts was originally convicted of selling cocaine and sentenced to four years in prison plus six years probation under a scoresheet that mistakenly …
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
NESBITT, Judge.
Anthony Roberts appeals the sentence imposed following a violation of probation. We affirm.
Originally, after a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of selling cocaine, and sentenced to four years in prison followed by six years probation under a score-sheet which mistakenly omitted a number of prior convictions. After appeal, this court affirmed the judgment and sentence. Roberts v. State, 565 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
Thereafter, the defendant violated his probation and, after a hearing, the court sentenced him to nine years in prison. Because the subsequent scoresheet contained the correct number of prior convictions, the sentence imposed upon the defendant was bumped up three cells. The defendant argues that both the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure as well as the Florida Supreme Court allow for a maximum one-cell increase in a defendant’s sentence upon a violation of probation. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(14); see also State v. Pentaude, 500 So. 2d 526 (Fla.1987). Thus, according to the defendant, the court’s failure to use the original scoresheet resulted in a sentence which exceeded the maximum allowed one-cell upward increase.
The defendant cites to Graham v. State, 559 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) for the proposition that a trial court is without power to consider a new scoresheet, over objection, containing prior convictions completely omitted from the original. The contention then is that the defendant be sentenced under a scoresheet that is simply not based upon the truth. Consequently, we do not agree with Graham because to follow it literally, the defendant receives the benefit of being sentenced under a scoresheet which mistakenly omits prior convictions. Neither the rules nor the substantive law justifies a defendant receiving the largesse of a judicial error. Since only one guidelines scoresheet may be used for each defendant covering all offenses pending before the court at sentencing, Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(1); accord Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838, 841 (Fla.1989), following the defendant’s argument permits him to escape the punishment meted out by the law.
Furthermore, since the defendant’s violation of probation triggered the resentencing, the defendant is not being sentenced for “precisely the same conduct,” and double jeopardy concerns do not come into play. State v. Payne, 404 So. 2d 1055, 1058 (Fla.1981) (citing Williams v. Wainwright, 493 F.Supp. 153, 155-56 (S.D.Fla. 1980).
In the instant case, using the original scoresheet, the court could have imposed a maximum sentence of two and one-half to five and one-half years incarceration after the probation violation. Had the defendant originally been sentenced under a correct scoresheet, however, the trial court could have incarcerated him for a maximum of twelve years after his probation violation. Allowing the inaccurate scoresheet to stand unjustly benefits the defendant by allowing his prior convictions to pass unnoticed merely because they were mistakenly omitted the first time.
We certify to the supreme court the apparent conflict between our decision and that of Graham v. State, 559 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
Accordingly, the sentence under review is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanders v. State, 35 So. 3d 864 (Fla. 2010)…ce the defendant’s violation of probation triggered the resentencing, the defendant is not being sentenced for “precisely the same conduct,” and double jeopardy concerns do not come into play. Roberts, 644 So. 2d at 82-83 (quoting Roberts v. State, 611 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)). In short, this Court concluded that a defendant is not entitled to perpetuate an error in scoring. Our holding in Roberts is thus inconsistent with the reasoning employed by the Second District. Next, the Second District determ…
-
Roberts v. State, 644 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1994)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Roberts v. State, 611 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), based on certified conflict with Graham v. State, 559 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), on the issue of whether, in resentencing a defendant after a revocation of probation, a court has authority to revise a guidelines scoresheet t…1 / 2
-
Scherwitz v. State, 618 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…State, 559 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), the Fourth District held that a trial court is without power to consider a corrected scoresheet under these circumstances. The Third District recently has come to a contrary conclusion in Roberts v. State, 611 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992): The defendant cites to Graham v. State, 559 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) for the proposition that a trial court is without power to consider a new score-sheet, over objection, containing prior convictions completely omitted fr…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1989)
- State v. Pentaude, 500 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1987)
- State v. Payne, 404 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1981)
- Graham v. State, 559 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Williams v. Wainwright, 493 F. Supp. 153 (S.D. Fla. 1980)