FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, 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.
Francisco Hernandez appealed an order denying his motion to correct his sentencing scoresheet following conviction for attempted burglary with a firearm and possession of burglary tools. The court affirmed the denial of one claim regarding prior convictions not apparent on the scoresheet's face, but reversed as to manifest errors in the classification of felony degrees that appeared on the scoresheet itself, requiring remand for resentencing.
The court affirmed the denial of Hernandez's challenge to the prior conviction count (five versus two attempted robberies) because such non-apparent scoresheet errors are not cognizable on a rule 3.800(a) motion. However, the court reversed as to the manifest errors in felony degree classifications visible on the scoresheet's face, as these errors are correctable under rule 3.800(a), and remanded for resentencing based on the corrected scoresheet.
[1] Score sheet errors not apparent from the face of the score sheet are not cognizable on a motion for correction of sentence pursuant to rule 3.800(a).
[2] Score sheet errors that are apparent on the face of the score sheet are reviewable under rule 3.800.
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“[Sjeoresheet errors that are not apparent from the face of the seoresheet may result in an erroneous sentence correctable on direct appeal, but not on a motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a).”
Establishes the distinction between non-apparent scoresheet errors (reviewable only on direct appeal) and apparent errors (reviewable under rule 3.800(a))
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHernandez was convicted by jury of attempted burglary of a structure with a firearm and possession of burglary tools. He was sentenced to fifteen year…
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 Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Francisco Hernandez appeals an order denying his motion for correction of sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for resentencing.
Following a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of one count of attempted burglary of a structure with a firearm and one count of possession of burglary tools. For the primary offense, the attempted burglary, he was sentenced to fifteen years with a three-year mandatory minimum for use of a firearm. Appellant claimed in his motion that his guidelines seoresheet was incorrectly calculated.
We affirm the denial as to one of Appellant’s claims, which was that the score-sheet erroneously showed a prior record including five counts of attempted robbery with a firearm, when it should have included only two, as such alleged error is not cognizable on a rule 3.800(a) motion. “[Sjeoresheet errors that are not apparent from the face of the seoresheet may result in an erroneous sentence correctable on direct appeal, but not on a motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a).” Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (emphasis added), rev. denied, 613 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1992).
We reverse as to the other claim, as it is apparent that the five attempted robbery with firearm convictions were scored as first degree felonies punishable by life, and Appellant’s prior conviction for attempted third degree murder was scored as a second degree felony. Attempted robbery with a firearm is a second degree felony, § 812.13(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1991); § 777.04(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (1991), and attempted third degree murder is a third degree felony, § 782.04(4), Fla. Stat. (1991); § 777.04(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (1991). If these errors are corrected, Appellant’s score-sheet will total 123 points, for a 5^ to 7 year sentencing range, instead of 250 points, for a 12-17 year sentencing range.
An erroneous calculation apparent on the face of the scoresheet is reviewable under rule 3.800. See Owens v. State, 667 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The state has conceded the errors which are apparent on the face of the scoresheet and requests that the trial court be allowed an opportunity to correct them. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for such correction and for re-sentencing in accordance with the corrected scoresheet.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
GLICKSTEIN, GUNTHER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wright v. State, 711 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…heet error and, therefore, that appellate review is precluded where the alleged error is not apparent on the face of the document and requires an evidentiary determination. See Dailey v. State, 488 So. 2d 532 (Fla.1986). See also Hernandez v. State, 698 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Here, the error alleged is not apparent from the face of the document. Further, as the State pointed out, Wright is barred by the doctrine of laches from pursuing his claim. Laches is sustainable in a criminal ease where there…
-
McCLAIN v. State, 157 So. 3d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…reversing where the trial court denied a claim of scoresheet error on the basis that it was not apparent from the face of the scoresheet rather than considering whether the error was apparent from the face of the record); but see Hernandez v. State, 698 So. 2d 906, 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“[S]coresheet errors that are not apparent from the face of the scoresheet may result in an erroneous sentence correctable on direct appeal, but not on a motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a).”) (quoting Judge v. State, 596 So.…
-
Letarius Mathis v. State, 738 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…s issue cannot be addressed in a Rule 3.800(a) context. We think the trial court ruled correctly. See, e.g., Mathis v. State, 719 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Richardson v. State, 705 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). See also Hernandez v. State, 698 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), rev. denied, 613 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1992). Compare Johnson v. State, 702 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Horton v. State, 696 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Petition for Writ of Ha…
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
- Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Owens v. State, 667 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)