CURTIS WAYNE BROWN, 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.
Curtis Wayne Brown appealed the revocation of his community control and his sentences. The trial court properly found that Brown willfully and substantially violated community control terms, but the court erred by accepting a scoresheet with mathematical errors and prior convictions that lacked proper corroboration from the state.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking community control based on willful and substantial violations. However, the trial court erred by accepting the scoresheet without requiring the state to present corroborating evidence of disputed prior convictions, and the scoresheet contained a mathematical error. Resentencing based on an accurate scoresheet is required.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by revoking community control when a defendant willfully and substantially violates its terms.
[2] When a defendant challenges the accuracy of prior convictions on a sentencing scoresheet, the state bears the burden of producing competent evidence to corroborate those…
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“When a defendant challenges prior convictions and the accuracy of the score-sheet, the state has the burden of producing competent evidence of the disputed convictions.”
Establishes the legal standard that the state must corroborate prior convictions when challenged
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown was subject to community control in three separate cases. The trial court revoked his community control after finding willful and substantial vi…
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 Willful And Substantial Violation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Curtis Wayne Brown, challenges an order revoking his community control and the sentences imposed upon him. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the appellant willfully and substantially violated the terms of his community control in three separate eases. We, accordingly, affirm the order revoking the appellant’s community control. However, because the seoresheet used in sentencing the appellant was mathematically incorrect and prior convictions were not properly corroborated, we must remand for resentencing.
The appellant argued that some of the prior convictions listed on his seoresheet were in error because they contained adjudications of delinquency which had occurred more than three years prior to the offenses being considered. The trial court, without requiring the state to present any corroborating evidence concerning these convictions, rejected the appellant’s contention and accepted the seoresheet. The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgments and sentences imposed upon him.
The appellant contends, and the state agrees, that the court erred by accepting the seoresheet presented to it without requiring the state to establish that it was correct in all respects. When a defendant challenges prior convictions and the accuracy of the score-sheet, the state has the burden of producing competent evidence of the disputed convictions. Watson v. State, 591 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). See also Hamilton v. State, 658 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Moss v. State, 581 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The state failed to meet this burden.
Additionally, we note that the seoresheet for circuit court case number 94-13884 contained a mathematical error which incorrectly added twenty points to the original score-sheet total.
Even though the same sentences might be appropriate when the appellant is resen-tenced, we must reverse and remand for resentencing pursuant to an accurate seore-sheet. Lewis v. State, 574 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moncus v. State, 69 So. 3d 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…ior conviction at sentencing, the defendant had the burden of proof after sentencing. Reversing, the court held that the state had the burden of producing competent evidence of a disputed conviction at all times. Id. at 251; see also Brown v. State, 695 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (state must produce competent evidence when a defendant challenges prior convictions at sentencing). When the State must establish the existence of a prior conviction to prove an essential element of an offense, merely introducin…
-
Feaster v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2026)…le 3.850. We further remand this matter only for the purpose of completing a correct scoresheet, if in error noting that the burden of corroborating a disputed scoresheet by competent and substantial evidence lies with the State. See Brown v. State, 695 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (citing Watson v. State, 591 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)). [*4] AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions. BOATWRIGHT, J., concurs. EISNAUGLE, J., concurs specially with opinion. Not final until disposition of any timely and autho…
Authorities Cited
- Lewis v. State, 574 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Watson v. State, 591 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Moss v. State, 581 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Fajardo v. State, 658 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Hamilton v. State, 658 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)