WILLIAM LEE WALLS, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the sentence, holding that while the inclusion of victim injury points on the scoresheet was an error, it did not prejudice the defendant given the negotiated sentence.
[1] A negotiated plea sentence is not rendered invalid by a scoresheet error if the defendant is not prejudiced by the error.
[2] A scoresheet error is preserved for future sentencing proceedings if the error cannot be used to lengthen a defendant's sentence upon revocation of probation.
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 intelligenceThe defendant pleaded no contest to charges of lewd acts. He negotiated a specific sentence of community control and probation. At sentencing, he obje…
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 Victim Injury Points cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Walls seeks review of the sentence imposed' pursuant to a negotiated plea arguing that it violates Karchesky v. State, 591 So. 2d 930 (Fla.1992) in that the scoresheet reflects victim injury points. Although Walls is correct that Karchesky applies, we affirm because the error has not prejudiced Walls. See Morris v. State, 605 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
The state charged Walls with two counts of a lewd act in the presence of a child (counts I & III) and one count of a lewd act on a child (count II). Walls pleaded no contest to counts I and III, and the state nolle prossed count II. Walls negotiated a plea whereby he would receive two years’ community control followed by eight years’ probation. Neither the plea agreement nor the record supports that the sentence was to be in accordance with the guidelines. At sentencing, Walls objected to the addition of victim injury points citing Karchesky; however, the court stated that it did not think that Karchesky applied.
The defense counsel agreed to proceed with the plea and sentencing but stated that he would file a motion to correct the score-sheet. Instead, he filed a notice of appeal. It is clear from the record that defense counsel was concerned with preserving the score-sheet error in the event that Walls violated probation and the trial court used the same scoresheet when it sentenced Walls upon revocation of probation. See Morris; see also Harrelson v. State, 616 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
The record supports the fact that Walls received the specific sentence that he negotiated as a condition of the plea. Although a guidelines scoresheet was prepared, it did not coincide with the actual sentence imposed; therefore, Walls was not prejudiced by the scoresheet error. However, in the event that Walls violates probation, we deem the scoresheet error preserved because the error cannot be used to lengthen his sentence. See Morris, 605 So. 2d at 514.
Affirmed.
PARKER, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., and LUTEN, CLAIRE K., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Echols v. State, 660 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…ermore, this court and other district courts have concluded that a sentence entered upon a plea of nolo contendere does not preclude correction of an illegal sentence arising from improper scoring of victim-injury points. See Boland; Walls v. State, 627 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The scoring of victim-injury points depends upon resolution of facts proving “penetration or slight injury” as provided in the appropriate guideline scoresheet from 1988. The record on appeal shows that the state did not allege…
-
Salemi v. State, 636 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…and for proceedings pursuant to Morris v. State, 605 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). See also Harrelson v. State, 616 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 624 So. 2d 268 (Fla.1993); Ash v. State, 624 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Walls v. State, 627 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Reversed and remanded. RYDER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur. . Apparently, these offenses were committed pri- or to the creation of permitted range sentencing. Our record does not disclose the dates of the offenses. . It…
-
Williams v. State, 647 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…[*1070] PER CURIAM. Kenneth Williams originally appealed the denial of his motion brought pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(a), but, thereafter, conceded that the denial should be affirmed based upon Walls v. State, 627 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), and we agree. However, Williams properly demonstrated that a scrivener’s error exists in the sentencing documents concerning the degree of crimes for which he was convicted, a technical defect admitted by the state. Therefore, we…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Karchesky v. State, 591 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 1992)
- Silas v. Morris, 605 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Harrelson v. State, 616 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)