DARRELL NANTZ, 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 the trial court erred in sentencing above the guidelines due to scoresheet errors, it did not err in sentencing above the statutory maximum.
Defendant was convicted of DUI offenses and sentenced above the statutory maximum. The trial court relied on a scoresheet with mathematical errors tha…
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
FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.
Darrell Nantz, who was adjudicated guilty of two counts of Driving Under the Influ ence/UnlawM Blood Alcohol Level with Serious Bodily Injury (third degree felonies), and one count of Driving Under the Influence/Unlawful Blood Alcohol Level with Property Damage (first degree misdemean-or), contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him above the statutory maximum for the offenses. We reverse because errors in the scoresheet led the trial court to sentence Nantz above the guidelines recommended sentence, but the court did not err in sentencing him beyond the statutory maximum.
Nantz committed the offenses after January 1,1994. Under the version of the guidelines in effect at the time of Nantz’s offenses, the trial court was required to impose a guidelines sentence even if the sentence exceeded the maximum authorized by section 775.082, Florida Statutes (1998), absent a departure. § 921.0014(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); see also § 921.001(5), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994). It is obvious from the face of the record and from the transcript of the sentencing proceedings that the trial court intended to impose a guidelines rather than a departure sentence.
It is equally apparent that the trial court relied upon a scoresheet that contained mathematical errors. On the second page, in the computation for recommended range, the scoresheet preparer miscalculated the range and led the court to believe that Nantz could be sentenced to a term of 105 months, which was apparently rounded off to nine years. Application of the correct mathematics, however, yields a recommended range of from 61.5 to 102.5 months. On remand, the trial court should impose a sentence, within the guidelines, of no more than 8.5 years.
Reversed and remanded for resentencing within the guidelines.
BLUE and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 714 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…ence. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to enter a new sentence based on a properly calculated scoresheet. See Angel Torres v. State, — So. 2d -, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1054 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr.22, 1998); Nantz v. State, 687 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), review denied, 695 So. 2d 700 (Fla.1997). Smith also correctly argues that the trial court erred by including a disputed, prior misdemeanor offense in his sentencing [*1153] guidelines seoresheet without requiring the State to p…
-
Carnell E. Butler v. State, 735 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…ere multiplied by seventy-five percent, the minimum prison term should have been 21.15 months instead of the 27.25 months reflected on the scoresheet. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for sentencing with a corrected scoresheet. See Nantz v. State, 687 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (reversing and remanding for resentencing when trial court relied on scoresheet with mathematical errors), review denied, 695 So. 2d 700 (Fla.1997). Reversed and remanded. PATTERSON, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., Concur.…
-
Edenfield v. State, 725 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…months. The briefs on Edenfield’s direct appeal to this court indicate that this sentence exceeding the statutory maximum was imposed pursuant to the guidelines, which is authorized by section 921.001(5), Florida Statutes (1995). See Nantz v. State, 687 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The trial court denied the claim because it had been raised on direct appeal. While the propriety of the sentencing scheme was briefed on appeal, in his collateral motion Edenfield alleges that the plea was involuntarily entered…