PETER GREY, JR., 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 the trial court erred in not addressing the defendant's claim that his scoresheet improperly used a crime not subject to the sentencing proceeding as the primary offense.
[1] A motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is the appropriate procedural vehicle to challenge an incorrect classification of the primary offen…
[2] A defendant's claim that a guidelines scoresheet improperly utilizes a crime not subject to the sentencing proceeding as the primary offense at conviction is cognizable i…
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 intelligencePeter Grey challenged his scoresheet calculation, alleging it improperly used an attempted murder offense as his primary offense at conviction. The tr…
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 Primary Offense At Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Peter Grey appeals the denial of his challenge to a scoresheet calculation filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court’s correct analysis of three of his claims overlooks a fourth allegation which is not refuted by the record. Accordingly, we reverse.
Following a brief prison stay, Grey was placed under supervision for convictions which may have grown out of two separate informations, one principally involving burglary and one attempted murder. He appended to his motion the affidavit from the burglary offense case number which alleges violations of that supervision which led to the sentence of which he now complains; he represents that his guidelines scoresheet includes those crimes as well as the attempted murder offenses, for which he denies that he was ever under supervision. His guidelines scoresheet, he maintains, improperly utilized one of these attempted murder offenses as his primary offense at conviction.
The record provided to this court, and the tone of Grey’s motion, hint that a violation of supervision for the attempted murder offenses was disposed of at the same time as the burglary offenses, and that the guidelines scoresheet was properly prepared. Grey, however, has alleged contrariwise, and the record does not refute this. Rule 3.800(a) is the appropriate vehicle to challenge an incorrect classification of the primary offense on a guidelines scoresheet. See Ducharme v. State 690 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Grey’s extraordinary claim that the score-sheet utilizes a crime which was not the subject of that sentencing proceeding as the primary offense at conviction is cognizable as well in such a collateral proceeding. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of three of Grey’s claims and reverse and remand for the trial court to consider his allegation that his score-sheet improperly utilized as the primary offense a crime which was not before the court at the time for disposition.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and BLUE and GREEN, JJ., Concur.