MARCUS MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1999-01-13
No. 98-03650
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN and CASANUEVA, JJ„ Concur.
725 So. 2d 414 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1999) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Marcus Miller appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the improper scoring of juvenile misdemeanors on his sentencing scoresheet. The appellate court reversed, finding Miller stated a facially sufficient ineffective assistance claim that warranted further proceedings.


Holding

Miller stated a facially sufficient claim for ineffective assistance of counsel that was not refuted by the record. The trial court erred in summarily denying relief where counsel knew of the applicable time limitation but failed to properly raise it in the motion to strike.


Headnotes

[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is cognizable in a motion for post-conviction relief when counsel fails to object to errors in the scoring of prior convictio…

[2] Juvenile misdemeanors are not scorable on a defendant's scoresheet if they fall outside the three-year time limitation established by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3…

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

Key Quotes

“A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to object to errors in the scoring of prior convictions, when counsel is aware of the problem, is cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion.”

Establishes the legal standard for ineffective assistance claims based on scoring errors

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Miller's trial counsel filed a motion to strike his juvenile adjudications but later withdrew it without the court ruling on it. The motion listed cas…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Marcus Miller appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Miller alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the scoring of numerous juvenile misdemeanors on his scoresheet, which were not scorable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(5)(G), as they were beyond the three-year time limitation created by the rule.1 Miller alleged his counsel should have been aware that the rule was applicable to his case and that if the juvenile adjudications had not been included, he would have fallen into a different guidelines range for sentencing. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel’s failure to object to errors in the scoring of prior convictions, when counsel is aware of the problem, is cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion. See Manuel v. State, 629 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (holding that defendant may be entitled to relief on 3.850 claim if counsel knew prior juvenile adjudications, which affected the guidelines recommended range, were unscorable and failed to bring this to the trial court’s attention).

The trial court summarily denied Miller’s claim based on a finding that counsel had filed a motion to strike Miller’s juvenile adjudications. Counsel’s motion to strike, which was later withdrawn prior to the court ruling on it, contained a laundry list of nonspecific attacks on the underlying adjudications that failed to reference the time limitation under the rule. The motion to strike listed the case numbers and the dates of the adjudications, some of which are clearly outside of the prescribed three-year period, so that it is clear that counsel was aware of the facts pertinent to the issue before the court.

It is not clear from the record before this court how much Miller’s guideline score-sheet would change if the applicable juvenile offenses were stricken from the scoresheet. However, Miller has made a facially sufficient claim for relief which is not refuted by the record attached to the trial court’s order. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying relief on Miller’s motion for postconviction relief and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN and CASANUEVA, JJ„ Concur. . Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(5)(G) provides: "All prior juvenile dispositions that are the equivalent of convictions as defined in subdivision (d)(2), occurring within 3 years of the commission of the primary offense and that would have been criminal if committed by an adult, shall be included in prior record.”


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Johnson v. State, 736 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
    …n the sentencing guidelines scoresheet. Because appellant failed to allege that his attorney either knew or should have known that the prior record was incorrect, appellant has failed to state a facially sufficient claim’ See, e.g., Miller v. State, 725 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Brye v. State, 677 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Manuel v. State, 629 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Lanier v. State, 478 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Accordingly, we affirm. However, we do so without prejudice to appellan…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw