DAVID L. HORTON, 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.
Florida appellate court partially affirmed and partially reversed a denial of a motion to correct illegal sentence, holding that claims about uncounseled misdemeanors are procedurally barred but claims about improper inclusion of habitualized offenses on the guidelines scoresheet are reviewable and warrant remand.
Rule 3.800(a) permits challenges to improperly scored sentencing guidelines scoresheets when claims are apparent from the face of the record, but claims requiring factual determinations outside the record are procedurally barred.
[1] Rule 3.800(a) permits challenges to sentencing guidelines scoresheets based on claims apparent from the face of the record, but procedurally bars claims requiring factual…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid L. Horton filed a motion to correct his sentence, arguing that his guidelines scoresheet improperly included uncounseled misdemeanor prior offen…
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 Habitualization cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
David L. Horton filed a motion to correct illegal sentence, contending that his guidelines scoresheet was improper in two respects. First, he claimed that certain misdemeanor prior offenses were uncounseled and should not have been scored. Second, he claimed that certain additional offenses for which he was habitualized were also included on the scoresheet. The trial court denied relief, finding that appellant did not claim his sentences exceeded the statutory maximum and therefore relief was barred under Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995).
In addition to challenging a sentence which exceeds the statutory maximum, rule 3.800(a) is available to assert claims that a sentencing guidelines scoresheet was improperly scored. Baldwin v. State, 679 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Such claims are limited to those which are apparent from the face of the record. Id. In the instant case, we find that factual determinations outside the record would be necessary to determine whether the prior misdemeanors were un-counseled. These claims therefore are procedurally barred. The second claim, relating to habitualized additional offenses, should be apparent from the face of the record and, if true, may entitle the appellant to some relief. Eblin v. State, 677 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We therefore affirm in part and reverse and remand in part for further proceedings on appellant’s claim relating to improper inclusion of habitualized offenses as “additional offenses” on the guidelines score-sheet.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED.
ALLEN, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Forrest Atwood v. State, 765 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…rent on the face of the record, it is renewable under rule 3.800(a).” Johnson v. State, 702 So. 2d 247, 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Lewis v. State, 719 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Corp v. State, 698 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Horton v. State, 696 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Thus, although scoresheet-based sentencing errors under Rule 3.800(a) need to be capable of resolution by reference to “the record,” this refers to the entire written record available in the circuit court, not just to the limite…
-
ROY v. State, 711 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…n illegal sentence or that it contains a facial error. Rule 3.800(a) provides that a “court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it or an incorrect calculation made by it in a sentencing guideline scoresheet.” In Horton v. State, 696 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), this court held that rule 3.800(a) affords relief only in the case of sentences that exceed the statutory maximum, and where there are scoresheet errors apparent on the face of the record. Neither of Appellant’s claims in the…
-
Lewis v. State, 719 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…unchanged. Erroneous scoresheet calculations may be raised at any time pursuant to rule 3.800(a) as long as the alleged errors are apparent from the face of the record. E.g., Glanton v. State, 705 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Horton v. State, 696 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Baldwin v. State, 679 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Appellant’s motion alleges that the errors of which he complains are apparent from the face of the record. In fact, the arrest report which is a part of the record on appeal…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995)
- Eblin v. State, 677 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Interamerican CAR Rental, Inc. v. The Est. OF Jamaul McCLOUD, 679 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Miller Baldwin, Jr. v. State, 679 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)