JAMES KINGSLEY, 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.
James Kingsley appealed his sentence following a violation of probation. The court affirmed his conviction but reversed and remanded for resentencing because the trial court improperly revised the sentencing guidelines scoresheet to increase victim injury points from 4 to 40, contrary to the original determination that the victim suffered only slight injury.
A trial court may not revise a sentencing guidelines scoresheet during resentencing for probation violation to increase victim injury points from the original determination. Under Roberts v. State, revision is permitted only to correct mistakenly omitted points through no fault of the defendant, not to change factual determinations made at original sentencing. The original scoresheet with 4 points for slight victim injury must be used.
[1] A court may revise a sentencing guidelines scoresheet to include prior convictions mistakenly omitted from the original scoresheet without fault of the defendant upon rev…
[2] A court may not revise a sentencing guidelines scoresheet to increase points for victim injury upon revocation of probation if the original scoresheet had already determi…
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Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“in resentencing a defendant after his or her probation has been revoked, a court is authorized to revise a guidelines scoresheet to include prior convictions that were mistakenly omitted from the original scoresheet through no fault of the defendant”
Establishes the limited scope of revision authority under Roberts v. State, restricted to omitted points, not changed determinations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKingsley was sentenced following a probation violation. At the original sentencing, the victim was determined to have suffered slight injury, resultin…
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
GOSHORN, Judge.
James Kingsley appeals the final judgment and sentence entered following a violation of probation. We affirm Kingsley’s conviction, but must reverse and remand for resentencing because a revised sentencing guidelines scoresheet reflecting 40 points for severe victim injury was utilized rather than the original scoresheet, which allotted only 4 points because victim injury had been determined to be slight.
We reject the State’s argument that we should affirm based upon Roberts v. State, 644 So. 2d 81 (Fla.1994). In Roberts, the supreme court determined that in resentencing a defendant after his or her probation has been revoked, a court is authorized to revise a guidelines scoresheet to include pri-or convictions that were mistakenly omitted from the original scoresheet through no fault of the defendant. See Roberts, 644 So. 2d at 82. The court reasoned:
Now that ... [the defendant] has committed a new crime and violated his probation, we see no reason to perpetuate the error. Justice is not served by awarding a defendant something to which he is not entitled.
Id. However, the fact that points were mistakenly omitted in Roberts distinguishes that case from the instant matter. Here, there was a determination at the original sentencing that the victim only suffered slight injury, and thus, Kingsley was awarded 4 points for that infraction.1 Accordingly, we reverse Kingsley’s sentence and remand to the trial court for it to sentence Kingsley utilizing the original guidelines scoresheet. See Williams v. State, 678 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (reversing for resentencing after violation of probation where trial court added points for legal restraint although original scoresheet showed no additional points for legal restraint); compare King v. State, 648 So. 2d 183, 191-92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (upon revocation of probation, original guidelines sentence may be enhanced “on grounds that the scoresheet was inaccurate when sentencing was originally pronounced”) (emphasis added) (Benton, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (citing Roberts v. State, 644 So. 2d 81 (Fla.1994)), rev. granted, 659 So. 2d 1087 (Fla.1995).
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, REMANDED FOR RESENTENC-ING.
W. SHARP and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . The State asserts that the facts of this case warrant 40 victim injury points because kicking the victim "in the legs and mid-section ... constitutes more than slight injury.” However, there is nothing in the record to support this contention. In fact, the evidence tends to show that the injury was slight because Kingsley was never ordered to pay restitution for such items as medical expenses, physical therapy, or lost income.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trotter v. State, 825 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2002)…se the multiplier during the defendant’s original sentencing. See Trotter, 801 So. 2d at 1043. The Fifth District explained that the Second District in Estrada based its decision in part on the Fifth District’s earlier decision in Kingsley v. State, 682 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), which held that, “although points which were mistakenly omitted from a scoresheet can be added when sentencing for violation of probation, a determination that only slight victim injury occurred cannot be altered on a violation…1 / 2
-
Estrada v. State, 787 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…trial court’s reasoned decision that the multiplier need not be imposed. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the trial court may not, upon a defendant’s motion to correct sentence, choose to add the multiplier. See, e.g., Kingsley v. State, 682 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (holding that although points which were mistakenly omitted from a scoresheet may be added when sentencing for a violation of probation, a determination that only slight victim injury occurred may not be altered upon a violation…
-
Trotter v. State, 801 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…e multiplier was purposefully omitted during the defendant’s original sentencing. We respectfully disagree with this holding and certify conflict with Estrada. The Estrada case based its holding in part on this court’s decision in Kingsley v. State, 682 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), which held that, although points which were mistakenly omitted from a scoresheet can be added when sentencing for violation of probation, a determination that only slight victim injury occurred cannot be altered on a violation o…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Roberts v. State, 644 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1994)
- King v. State, 648 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- N.S.G. v. State, 678 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)