ALBERT C. SPRANKLE, 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 the trial court erred in denying the motion to correct an illegal sentence based on improperly included victim injury points on the guidelines scoresheet.
Appellant appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that victim injury points were improperly included in his guidelin…
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 Florida Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
[*737] PER CURIAM.
Albert C. SpranHe appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence. Of the two grounds stated, only his allegation that the court improperly included points on the guidelines scoresheet in violation of Karchesky v. State, 591 So. 2d 930 (Fla.1992), appears to have merit. We, therefore, affirm in part, but reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SpranHe asserted that in calculating his score for a lewd and lascivious act the court improperly included points for victim injury. In its order denying relief, the trial court concluded that SpranHe was not harmed by the inclusion of the additional points because the sentence imposed is still within the permitted range of punishment under the guidelines. This conclusion was reached despite the acknowledged fact that when the victim injury points are not applied, SpranHe’s guidelines sentence would drop one cell.
This reasoning is obviously flawed. When a corrected scoresheet places the defendant in a different cell, the error cannot be presumed to be harmless, unless the record conclusively demonstrates that the trial court would have given the same sentence had it known the correct score. See, e.g., Singleton v. State, 620 So. 2d 1038 (Fla.2d DCA 1993); Burrows v. State, 649 So. 2d 902, 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Deparvine v. State, 603 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
The trial court must resentence SpranHe using a corrected scoresheet; see Sellers v. State, 578 So. 2d 339, 341 (Fla. 1st DCA), approved, 586 So. 2d 340 (Fla.1991), unless after reviewing the record or conducting an evidentiary hearing it determines that actual physical injury occurred. See Fulkroad v. State, 640 So. 2d 1160, 1161 (Fla.2d DCA), review denied, 649 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1994).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Eblin v. State, 677 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…dditional offenses here, Eb-lin’s guidelines range would have been 54.9 to 91.5 months’ imprisonment. While his sentence does fall within the guidelines range using the correct scoresheet, this error is not harmless. As we said in Sprankle v. State, 662 So. 2d 736, 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), when a correct scoresheet places a defendant in a different cell, we will not presume the error is harmless unless the record conclusively shows that the court would have imposed the same sentence if it knew the correct scor…
-
Anderson v. State, 865 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…oresheet error, like the error shown by Anderson, requires resentencing unless it can be shown conclusively that the same sentence would have been imposed if the corrected scoresheet had been used by the sentencing court. See also Sprankle v. State, 662 So. 2d 736, 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (holding that scoresheet error was basis for relief under motion to correct illegal sentence even where sentence imposed using incorrect scoresheet was “still within the permitted range of punishment” under the correct scores…
-
Terrell v. State, 668 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…ught about by guideline errors results in a lower cell, reconsideration of the sentence is required even if, after the reduction, the prisoner’s sentence lies in the permitted range when it originally was in the recommended range. Sprankle v. State, 662 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Here the court believed it was entering a downward departure, while in fact the sentence imposed lies within either the recommended or permitted range, depending upon whether one or both of the apparent seoresheet errors is corre…
Previewing 3 of 17 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)
- 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)
- Burrows v. State, 649 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Singleton v. State, 620 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Fulkroad v. State, 640 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Deparvine v. State, 603 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)