MELVILLE JOSEPH CORP, 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.
Melville Corp appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence based on alleged scoresheet errors in the sentencing calculation. The court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to attach the pertinent record materials to support its denial of the Rule 3.800(a) motion.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that while scoresheet errors remain cognizable claims under Rule 3.800(a), the trial court must attach portions of the record to its order when denying such claims. When denying a cognizable Rule 3.800(a) motion, the order must be supported by record materials that conclusively refute the appellant's claim.
[1] A claim of scoresheet error is cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) unless an evidentiary hearing is required to resolve the claim.
[2] When denying a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) claim, the trial court must attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim.
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“So remains the well-established requirement that when denying a cognizable 3.800(a) claim, the trial court must attach portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim.”
Establishes the core procedural requirement that trial courts must support denials of Rule 3.800(a) motions with attached record materials.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCorp pleaded nolo contendere in 1996 to three counts of providing contraband to minors (third degree felonies) and one count of battery (first degree …
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 Cognizable Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Melville Corp challenges an order by which his motion to correct an illegal sentence, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), was denied. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Appellant entered a plea of nolo contende-re in 1996 to three counts of providing contraband to minors, each third degree felonies, and one count of battery, a first degree misdemeanor. Appellant received five year sentences for the felonies, and a sentence of less than one year for the misdemeanor. In his postconviction motion, appellant argued that his sentence was illegal due to the improper scoring of victim injury points for sexual contact, when he was not convicted of any sex related offense. He asserted that without the erroneous scoring of these points, his score would place him into a lower range of permitted incarceration.
In denying the motion, the trial court stated the appellant was not entitled to relief because his sentence resulted from a plea agreement, calling for the specific sentence imposed. In so ruling, the trial court relied on the record of the proceedings in the original criminal case.
However, the court did not attach any portion of the record to the order. Under the Florida Supreme Court’s narrowed definition of an “illegal sentence”, for purposes of 3.800(a) claims, appellant’s sentences are not illegal, as he claims, because they do not exceed the statutory máxi-mums. See King v. State, 681 So. 2d 1136 (Fla.1996); Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995); and State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1995).
However, appellant alleges a scoresheet error, and we have recognized such a claim remains cognizable under rule 3.800(a), unless an evidentiary hearing is required to dispose of the claim. See, e.g., McClendon v. State, 679 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Baldwin v. State, 679 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
So remains the well-established requirement that when denying a cognizable 3.800(a) claim, the trial court must attach portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim. Ducharme v. State, 690 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Vigil v. State, 684 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Baldwin, supra; Anderson v. State, 679 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Fann v. State, 647 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Master v. State, 637 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
Without such attachments, the appellate court is often precluded from conducting meaningful review.
In this case, if appellant entered a negotiated plea bargain for the specific sentences imposed, without any conditional promise that such sentences be within the guidelines, then he would not be entitled to relief, as any scoresheet error would be harmless for purposes of rule 8.800. See Skidmore v. State, 688 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Russell v. State, 656 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Boerstler v. State, 622 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Although the trial court’s ruling is not inconsistent with this reasoning, the court failed to attach to its order the pertinent information upon which it relied.
Therefore, we must reverse and remand. If on remand the trial court again determines denial is appropriate, the order should be supported by portions of the record relied upon to refute appellant’s claim of entitlement to relief.
Reversed.
WEBSTER, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Thomas v. State, 707 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…hough referring to the record of the proceedings, the trial court failed to attach the pertinent information upon which it relied to deny the motion and without such attachments, we are precluded from conducting meaningful review. See Corp v. State, 698 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Accordingly, we reverse and remand either for attachment of those portions of the record that conclusively show that appellant is not entitled to relief, or for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. M…
-
Forrest Atwood v. State, 765 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…1999). “If an erroneous scoresheet calculation is apparent 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 a…
-
Vidak v. State, 793 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…atutory maximum for the armed burglary count, regardless of the guidelines, the trial court was correct in concluding that the Heggs claim does not afford relief as to that count in a motion filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a). See, e.g., Corp v. State, 698 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (explaining that because sentence was result of plea agreement to specific sentence, scoresheet error could not be remedied by a rule 3.800(a) claim); Skidmore v. State, 688 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (sentence for a term of…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995)
- State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995)
- King v. State, 681 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1996)
- Skidmore v. State, 688 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Boerstler v. State, 622 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Ducharme v. State, 690 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Russell v. State, 656 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- 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)
- McCLENDON v. State, 679 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)