ROBERT HORN, 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.
Robert Horn appeals his convictions for sexual battery on a child and lewd and lascivious conduct, challenging child hearsay testimony, victim competency, and sentencing calculations. The court affirms the convictions but reverses the sentence due to errors in the sentencing guidelines scoresheet that resulted in improper point calculation and incorrect felony degree designation.
The court affirms the convictions on the hearsay and competency issues without further comment. However, the court reverses the sentence because sentencing errors apparent on the face of the record did not require contemporaneous objection to be preserved for review under the law effective at the time of sentencing (April 17, 1996), prior to the July 1, 1996 effective date of amended rules.
[1] A sentencing error apparent on the face of the record does not require a contemporaneous objection to be preserved for review if the sentencing occurred prior to the effe…
[2] A scrivener's error in a judgment incorrectly stating the degree of a felony may be corrected by the appellate court.
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“Prior to July 1, 1996, a sentencing error that was apparent from the face of the record did not require a contemporaneous objection in order to be preserved for review.”
Establishes the temporal limitation on when stricter preservation rules applied to sentencing errors
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1996, Horn was convicted of sexual battery on a child under twelve and lewd and lascivious conduct on a child under sixteen. At trial's conclusion,…
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 Sexual Battery On A Child Under Twelve cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Robert Horn appeals his convictions and sentences for sexual battery on a child under the age of twelve and lewd and lascivious act upon a child under sixteen. Horn raises three issues for review: (1) the trial court’s decision to allow child hearsay testimony; (2) the trial court’s finding that the child victim was competent to testify; and (3) the trial court’s calculation error in the sentencing guidelines scoresheet. We affirm as to the first two issues without further comment. However, we reverse the sentence because the sentencing guidelines scoresheet contained an error apparent on the face of the record.
In 1996, Horn was convicted of one count of sexual battery on a child under the age of twelve1 and one count of lewd and lascivious act upon a child under sixteen.2 At the conclusion of trial, Horn moved for judgment of acquittal based upon, among other claims, the prosecution’s failure to establish that Horn was eighteen years of age or older. The trial court partially granted the motion and ordered that Horn be convicted of the life felony of sexual battery on a child under the age of twelve by a person less than eighteen years of age. However, Horn’s judgment incorrectly states the degree of the crime as a capital felony. Additionally, Horn’s sentencing guidelines scoresheet contains an error which resulted in his offense being scored at 116 points instead of 91 points.
The State concedes that Horn’s sentencing guidelines scoresheet is incorrect. However, the State argues that Horn failed to preserve this issue in the trial court and thus is barred from raising it on direct appeal. We disagree and conclude that Horn can raise the issue on direct appeal.
In 1996, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140 was amended to conform with sections 924.051(3) and (4), Florida Statutes. Under rule 9.140(d), a sentencing error can only be heard on direct appeal if the error was brought to the attention of the trial court at the time of sentencing or by motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). However, Horn was sentenced on April 17, 1996, which was prior to the July 1, 1996 effective date of rule 9.140(d) and section 924.051. Prior to July 1, 1996, a sentencing error that was apparent from the face of the record did not require a contemporaneous objection in order to be preserved for review. See State v. Montague, 682 So. 2d 1085 (Fla.1996). It is apparent from the record that Horn’s sentencing guidelines scoresheet incorrectly scores the offense of sexual battery on a child under the age of twelve by a person less than eighteen years of age at 116 points and that the judgment mistakenly lists the degree of the crime as a capital felony instead of a life felony. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions but direct the trial court to correct the scrivener’s error in the judgment. We reverse the sentence and remand for re-sentencing upon correction of the guidelines scoresheet.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing with directions.
FULMER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and STRINGER, JJ„ Concur. . See § 794.011, Fla. Stat. (1995).
. See § 800.04, Fla. Stat. (1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzales v. State, 779 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…gularly reversed sentences and required the trial court to re-sentence the defendant with a correct scoresheet. See, e.g., Sellers v. State, 578 So. 2d 339, 341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Drayton v. State, 744 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Horn v. State, 736 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); White v. State, 728 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Carter v. State, 705 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Vitanzo v. State, 750 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Hayes v. State, 748 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Campbell v. State, 7…
-
Matthews v. State, 99 So. 3d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. KHOUZAM and MORRIS, JJ., Concur. . This case was superseded by statute, as stated in State v. Montague, 682 So. 2d 1085 (Fla.1996), which was in turn superseded by rule, as stated in Horn v. State, 736 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Montague, 682 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 1996)