JAMES M. WARREN, 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.
A facial error on a sentencing guidelines scoresheet that results in an increased point score requires reversal for resentencing, even without a contemporaneous objection.
Appellant contended that his sentence was imposed based on an erroneous sentencing guidelines scoresheet. The scoresheet erroneously awarded 122 point…
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 Written Order Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On appeal from a sentence imposed upon revocation of probation appellant contends that resentencing is required because the trial court relied upon a facially erroneous sentencing guidelines scoresheet. We find error, in that the guidelines scoresheet utilized by the sentencing judge erroneously scored 122 points for two counts of a life felony, whereas the primary offense at conviction was a single offense of armed robbery, a first degree felony punishable by life, which yielded a point score of only 82, a 40-point error.1 Under a corrected scoresheet, appellant’s point score would have placed appellant’s base range in a different cell. Although appellant’s 15-year sentence imposed upon revocation of probation is within the permitted range under the guidelines, we have previously held that a facial error resulting in an increase of one or more cells requires reversal for resentencing, even in the absence of a contemporaneous objection. Haas v. State, 625 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Sellers v. State, 578 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (citing Higgs v. State, 470 So. 2d 75, 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), approved, 586 So. 2d 340 (Fla.1991)).
A second issue raised by appellant is that the trial court erred in failing to enter a written order of probation. On remand, as the state concedes, the trial court is required to enter a written order of probation. - REVERSED and REMANDED for resentencing.
MINER and LAWRENCE, JJ., and SMITH, Senior Judge, concur. . The original sentence was based upon a written plea agreement, pursuant to which appellant was adjudicated guilty of one count of attempted armed robbery, and one count of armed robbery. Appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of eight years in prison followed by four years’ probation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clark v. State, 746 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…criminal mischief, appellant’s guidelines scoresheet must be corrected. Since appellant received a sentence at the top end of the guidelines under the prior scoresheet, appellant must be resentenced under a corrected scoresheet. See Warren v. State, 673 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion; conflict certified. ALLEN AND WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR.…
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- Higgs v. State, 470 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Haas v. State, 625 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)