STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD J. LOESCH, 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 State appeals a probation violation sentencing where the trial court incorrectly calculated the sentencing guidelines scoresheet by reducing points for community sanctions and failing to include points for additional probation violations and legal status violations. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the scoresheet was calculated incorrectly and that Loesch must be given the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea since it was based on the erroneous scoresheet.
The trial court erred in reducing the community sanction points from twelve to six, in failing to score additional points for the probation violation, and in failing to score additional points for legal status violation. The scoresheet must include points for all probation violations and the new offense must be scored as either the primary or additional offense, whichever results in the most severe sanction.
[1] A defendant's new felony conviction must be scored as either the primary offense or an additional offense, whichever results in the most severe sanction.
[2] A scoresheet must account for all probation violations pending at the time of sentencing.
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“new offense must be scored as either primary or additional offense, whichever results in most severe sanction”
Establishes the governing rule for how new offenses must be scored in sentencing guidelines calculations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 30, 1997, Loesch pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to sell and possession of marijuana, receiving thirty months' and twelve …
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 Additional Offense Scoring cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State appeals, and Richard Loesch concedes several errors on Loesch’s score-sheet after he committed a new offense while on probation. We reverse.
On June 30, 1997, Loesch pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to sell and possession of marijuana and was sentenced to thirty months’ probation for the cocaine charge and twelve months’ probation for the marijuana charge. Loesch violated his probation, and on October 24, 1997, the trial court modified its terms. On December 24, 1997, Loesch was charged with two counts of sale of cocaine and two counts of possession of cocaine. On February 11, 1998, an affidavit was filed alleging that Loesch had violated several conditions of his modified probation, including his commission of the new offenses of sale and possession of cocaine.
At a change of plea hearing, Loesch’s counsel argued that the sentencing guidelines scoresheet should not include twelve points for a new felony conviction because Loesch had not yet been convicted, even though he was pleading guilty. He also argued that a new conviction could not be scored as the primary offense and also serve as the basis to add points for a new law violation. The trial court reduced the twelve points to six, lowering the total from fifty-six to fifty points and decreasing the sentencing range from 21 to 35 months to 16.5 to 22.5 months’ state prison. Loesch admitted violating probation and pleaded guilty to the new felony charges. The trial court sentenced Loesch to one year in county jail on each count, concurrent.
We hold that the scoresheet was incorrect and that the trial court erred in reducing the twelve community sanction points to six, in failing to score an additional six points for Loesch’s first probation violation, and in failing to score an additional four points for legal status violation. See State v. Lamar, 659 So. 2d 262, 265 (Fla.1995)(new offense must be scored as either primary or additional offense, whichever results in most severe sanction); Barnett v. State, 642 So. 2d 575, 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)(scoresheet must take into account all probation violations pending at sentencing); Kelly v. State, 706 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)(trial court must include both legal status points and community sanction violation points for probation violation); § 921.0014, Fla. Stat. (1995)(legal status points and community sanction violation points); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.703(16)(G),(H)(legal status points and community sanction violation points). Therefore, we reverse and remand to the trial court to allow Loesch the opportunity to withdraw his plea, since it was based on an incorrect scoresheet and the promise of the lesser sentence.
FULMER, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murphy v. State, 761 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…should have first assessed twelve points because only the latest violation resulted from a new felony conviction. The previous violations would then score six points each because they did not result from new felony convictions. See State v. Loesch, 726 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). See also Brown v. State, 741 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (allowing assessment of twelve points each time a new felony conviction triggers a community sanction violation). Mr. Murphy was sentenced to 26.7 months in prison, w…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Lamar, 659 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1995)
- Kelly v. State, 706 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Barnett v. State, 642 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)