ROBERT HENRY COLEMAN, 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 while most of the defendant's claims were untimely, one claim regarding sentencing scoresheet errors should be considered.
[1] A motion to correct sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) may be used to challenge scoring errors on a sentencing scoresheet, even if the alleged err…
[2] The inclusion of victim injury points for contact or penetration on a sentencing scoresheet is an impermissible practice if it occurred after the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Karchesky v. …
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 challenged his sentence, alleging he was improperly scored victim injury points on his sentencing scoresheet, which led to a higher sent…
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.
Robert Coleman challenges the trial court’s denial of his posteonviction motion which the court found to be untimely. Of the myriad issues he raises, many are untimely and others are without merit in any circumstance. One, however, should have been raised in a motion to correct sentence which has no time limits and, based on Coleman’s unrefuted representations, may entitle him to relief.
In 1991 Coleman entered a plea to a variety of sexual offenses and was placed on long term supervision. Two subsequent violations of that supervision resulted in sentences being imposed totaling twenty years. He claims that on his sentencing scoresheet, presumably first used in 1991 and then again in 1994 when he was sentenced to prison, he was scored victim injury points for contact or penetration. The Florida Supreme Court disapproved of this practice in 1992. See Karchesky v. State, 591 So. 2d 930 (Fla.1992). He alleges as well that the inclusion of these points resulted in placing him in a sentencing cell one higher than he would have been absent this error. See Sprankle v. State, 662 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). This constitutes a facially sufficient claim under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) which has not been refuted by any record attachments by the trial court. While the erroneous inclusion of victim injury points after the date of Karchesky would best be remedied on direct appeal, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) specifically authorizes correction of calculation errors on sentencing scoresheets at any time.
There are no obstacles which Coleman confronts in bringing this to the court’s attention in a properly drafted motion to correct sentence. In the interests of judicial economy, however, we feel the most efficient manner of resolving this problem is to affirm the trial court on all other matters raised and to remand for the trial court to address Coleman’s Karchesky claim as though it had been advanced in the proper procedural vehicle.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Howard v. State, 724 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…ant in Montague v. State, 702 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). This claim is not, therefore, a rule 3.850 claim. We treat the claim, however, as if it had been properly raised pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. See Coleman v. State, 677 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Goutier v. State, 692 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).1 Howard alleges that the offenses occurred before the amendment to section 921.001(8), Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), which overruled Karchesky v. State, 591 So. 2d 930 (Fla.19…
-
Stewart v. State, 746 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…ues identified by Stewart and entered two orders on them. This court has reviewed Stewart’s motion in its entirety and treats it as if filed pursuant to the appropriate rule. See Goutier v. State, 692 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Coleman v. State, 677 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Stewart challenges his seven-year sentences for two third-degree felonies, contending that the sentences exceed the statutory maximum. The trial court ruled that the sentences were legal under the habitual offender statute. Howe…
Authorities Cited
- Karchesky v. State, 591 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 1992)
- Sprankle v. State, 662 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)