CLARENCE LEE, 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.
Clarence Lee appeals his conviction and sentence for four counts of robbery with a firearm and one count of aggravated assault. While affirming the conviction, the court reversed the sentence because the trial court imposed consecutive life sentences without providing written reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines.
The court held that any scoresheet errors were harmless because even with the subtraction of the 175 challenged points, the recommended and permitted sentencing ranges would remain unchanged. However, the imposition of consecutive life sentences for a single criminal episode constitutes a departure from guidelines that requires written reasons, which the trial court failed to provide.
[1] A trial court's error in scoring a defendant's scoresheet is harmless if the corrected score would not alter the recommended or permitted sentencing ranges.
[2] A departure sentence imposed by a trial court requires written reasons, even if the court was unaware it was imposing a departure sentence.
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“Even if Lee were correct and 175 points were improperly scored, subtracting these challenged points from the total would leave him in the same ranges. As such, the error, if any, was harmless.”
Establishes that scoresheet errors were harmless because they did not affect the applicable sentencing range.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLee was convicted of four counts of robbery with a firearm and one count of aggravated assault. All robberies occurred in a single criminal episode wh…
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
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Clarence Lee raises four issues in this appeal. Three concern the lower court’s rulings at trial. We find no error in these rulings, and affirm without discussion. Lee’s final point challenges his sentence on the basis of errors in the scoresheet. While we hold this error was harmless, we reverse Lee’s sentence because the trial court imposed a departure sentence without giving written reasons.
Lee was convicted of four counts of robbery with a firearm and one count of aggravated assault. The scoresheet used at sentencing showed a total of 1031 points. He contends that 175 of these points were improperly scored. Wé note that any score over 454 points gives a recommended range of life and a permitted range of 27 years’ imprisonment to life. Even if Lee were correct and 175 points were improperly scored, subtracting these challenged points from the total would leave him in the same ranges. As such, the error, if any, was harmless.
The record, however, reveals that the robberies all occurred in one criminal episode. Lee entered the front office of a business and robbed all the employees present. As noted above, the guidelines recommended life imprisonment. The trial court imposed a life sentence for each of the four robbery convictions, to run consecutively. It also imposed a three-year minimum mandatory term for possession of a firearm on each robbery sentence, but ordered these terms to run concurrently. For the aggravated assault conviction, the court sentenced Lee to five years’ imprisonment, to run concurrently with the sentences in the other counts.
Imposition of consecutive life sentences for a single criminal episode is a departure from the guidelines. Garcia v. State, 632 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Because the trial court failed to provide written reasons for its departure, Lee must be resen-tenced. Apparently the court was unaware that it was imposing a departure sentence. It may therefore, on resentencing, again depart from the guidelines if it provides valid written reasons for doing so. See Garcia. The trial court should also correct any score-sheet errors at this time.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.
THREADGILL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crawford v. State, 666 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…ition of consecutive sentences on counts arising from the same incident, when those convictions were taken into account in computing a recommended sentence, is a departure from the guidelines. Rease v. State, 493 So. 2d 454 (Fla.1986); Lee v. State, 648 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Garcia v. State, 632 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Because the trial court failed to provide written reasons for the departure, Crawford must be resentenced. There is no indication in the record that the trial court intended to…
-
Cowan v. State, 940 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…9 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Lyell v. State, 872 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Armstrong v. State, 846 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Robinson v. State, 818 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Graddy v. State, 685 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Lee v. State, 648 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Peeples v. State, 575 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Cichoski v. State, 874 [*1174] So. 2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Paul v. State, 830 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). SALCINES, STRINGER, and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.…
-
Parker v. State, 202 So. 3d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…599 So. 2d 996 (Fla.1992); Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Johnson v. State, 973 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Brown v. State, 827 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Cooper v. State, 800 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Lee v. State, 648 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Owens v. State, 626 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Allen v. State, 976 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Knickerbocker v. State, 619 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). KHOUZAM, SLEET, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.…
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
- Garcia v. State, 632 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)