IVAN D. TOMLIN, 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 affirmed the conviction and sentence, but noted a score-sheet error that may be challenged separately.
The defendant's prior conviction for escape was incorrectly scored, affecting his guidelines sentence calculation. This error was identified during an…
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 Anders V. California cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, J.
In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we affirm Ivan Tomlin’s conviction and sentence.
The record does, however, contain a score-sheet error. Tomlin’s prior conviction for escape from a juvenile facility was designated a violation of section 944.04, Florida Statutes, at offense level 8, earning 19 points. Instead it is a violation of section 944.401, Florida Statutes,1 at offense level 3, earning only 1.6 points. § 921.0012, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1998). Changing this particular score from 19 to 1.6 points drops Tomlin’s final score from 48.6 to 31.2 points. Because this change affects the length of his guidelines sentence, he may challenge the incorrect calculation under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Romano v. State, 718 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
AFFIRMED.
JOANOS, J., CONCURS.
BARFIELD, C.J., concurs in result only.
. Tomlin’s conviction was originally under Section 39,061, Florida Statutes, which was renumbered as section 944.401 in 1997. Ch. 97-238, § 113, at 4391, Laws of Fla.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.P. v. State, 730 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…law is clear that disposition orders which provide for indeterminate periods of commitment “constitute illegal dispositions that require reversal.” T.C. v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2343,-So. 2d-, 1998 WL 716898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); T.D.J. v. State, 725 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); C.D.N v. State, 720 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); T.R.G. v. State, 697 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The fact that D.P. may have served the maximum time provided by statute does not make the disposition order any less illegal…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Romano v. State, 718 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)