ERIC EUGENE GRANT, 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 court held that prior offenses should not be scored on a guidelines score-sheet if the state agreed to nolle prosequi those charges in the original plea, even if the formal dismissal occurred later.
[1] A prior criminal offense should not be scored on a guidelines scoresheet for sentencing if the state agreed to nolle prosequi those charges as part of an earlier plea agr…
[2] The dismissal of charges pursuant to a prior plea agreement is a ministerial act and does not alter the fact that the charges were effectively resolved at the time of the…
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 intelligenceGrant pleaded no contest to a new offense, violating community control. The state had previously agreed to nolle prosequi three forgery counts in exch…
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 Prior Record Scoring cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Eric Eugene Grant appeals the denial, following an evidentiary hearing, of a portion of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Grant admitted that his plea of no contest to a lewd act on a child represented a violation of his community control previously imposed based upon three counts of uttering a forged instrument. Grant received three concurrent five-year sentences on the charges for uttering a forged instrument, to run consecutively to a fifteen-year sentence on the lewd act charge.
Grant asserts that the guidelines score-sheet for his violation of community control, calculated in December 1986, incorrectly scored three counts of forgery that the state agreed to nolle prosequi in his original plea, entered in June 1986. In denying the motion to correct illegal sentence, the trial court determined that the three counts were scored correctly as a prior record1 because they were not dismissed until January 9, 1987, one month following the plea arrangement on his violation of community control.
We agree with the appellant that the additional counts should not have been included on the scoresheet. The agreement to dismiss the charges was reached in the original plea, when Grant was sentenced to community control in June 1986. This agreement became final when Grant’s plea was accepted by the trial court. Further, the entering of a dismissal of these charges was a purely ministerial act, not a substantive one. The charges should not have been scored on the guidelines scoresheet for Grant’s sentencing in January 5,1987, absent actual convictions.2
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing with a corrected guidelines scoresheet.
Reversed and remanded.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ., concur. . Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(5) states that prior record refers to any past criminal conduct resulting in a conviction.
. Under rule 3.701(d)(20), a conviction is a consequence of a determination of guilt resulting from a plea or trial, regardless if adjudication is withheld or imposition of sentence was suspended.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wanner v. State, 667 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…conclude that it erred in not resentencing her for organized fraud. Once it vacated the grand theft convictions, the trial court was precluded from scoring these offenses as convictions for purposes of the sentencing guidelines. See Grant v. State, 639 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (absent actual convictions, charges cannot be scored on sentencing guidelines scoresheet). [*428] Furthermore, because the scoresheet used at sentencing is not part of the record, we are unable to determine whether the sentence im…