JOHN COBB, 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 certified records justified scoring contested prior convictions and that the defendant's sentencing objection was waived or harmless error.
[1] Certified records submitted to the court are sufficient to establish prior convictions for sentencing purposes, even if the defendant cannot recall or denies them.
[2] A scoresheet used for sentencing calculations must contain sufficient specificity to allow a defendant to challenge the accuracy of the calculations.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Cobb was convicted of drug offenses and appealed his sentence, arguing the scoresheet improperly included prior convictions and lumped misdemeano…
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 Waiver Of Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
John Cobb was convicted of delivery of cocaine and possession of cocaine. He appeals his sentence, contending that the court erred in scoring certain of his prior convictions. Although Cobb either could not remember, or denied, certain convictions, we find that the certified records submitted to the court justified its finding that the contested convictions were established.
Cobb also urges that the court erred in sentencing him based on a scoresheet that included twelve unspecified misdemeanors within a single category under prior record on the scoresheet. He admits that the individual misdemeanors were discussed in his presentence investigation report but contends that it is the scoresheet, not the PSI, that is the proper basis for sentencing. He cites Williams v. State, 658 So. 2d 1249, 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), for the proposition that:
As defendant contended to the trial court and repeats now on appeal, the kind of entry used here to lump several separate convictions together effectively deprives him of the ability to challenge the accuracy of the calculations. Without the specificity we find lacking, we are unable to discern which entries in his criminal history may be scored. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.702(d)(8)(E).
This scoresheet is not saved merely because the presentence investigation report details the misdemeanor convictions. It is the scoresheet that controls the guidelines calculations, and not the report.
First, Cobb did not raise this objection below and the issue is therefore waived. Terry v. State, 668 So. 2d 954 (Fla.1996). Further, the record reflects that Cobb had no difficulty challenging the accuracy of the calculations and, because the presentence investigation report is in the record, we have no difficulty in determining which of his misdemeanors were scored. There were twelve misdemeanors detailed in the PSI and all were scored. Finally, even if multiple scoring under a single category is error, we find it to be harmless error in this case.
AFFIRMED.
GOSHORN and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dowdy v. State, 700 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…o contention that any offense was scored that should not have been. The Williamscourt chose not to search the PSI for this information because: “[i]t is the scoresheet that controls the guidelines calculations, and not the [PSI].” In Cobb v. State, 691 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), we disagreed with Williams and held that multiple scoring under a single category would be, at most, harmless error so long as the required information was in the record. Now we hold that it was not error to incorporate by atta…
Authorities Cited
- Terry v. State, 668 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1996)
- Artis Williams v. State, 658 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)