LETARIUS MATHIS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 a motion to correct a sentencing scoresheet error is not cognizable under Rule 3.800(a) if it requires factual determinations outside the record.
Mathis sought a belated appeal of a summary order denying his motion to correct a sentencing scoresheet. He argued a misdemeanor offense was improperl…
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 Prior Record Scoring cases and more on FLexlaw
Mathis seeks a belated appeal of the trial court’s summary order rendered May 4, 1998, which denied his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He alleges he instructed his attorney to file an appeal but she failed to do so. The state’s response does not address this allegation. Accordingly, we elect to grant Mathis a belated appeal in this cause, but after considering the merits, we affirm.
In his motion, Mathis claims that the trial court erred in improperly scoring a misdemeanor offense as “prior record” because that offense occurred one month after the robbery offense for which he was being sentenced. Removal of the additional four points in the score attributable to the misdemeanor offense would be sufficient to drop him to a lower sentencing range.
The trial court denied the motion because the scoring error was not apparent on the face of the scoresheet and “[i]t would be necessary for the court to make factual determinations outside of the record to determine if one of the prior offenses listed on the scoresheet occurred after the primary offense.” Therefore this issue cannot be addressed in a Rule 3.800(a) context.
We think the trial court ruled correctly. See, e.g., Mathis v. State, 719 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Richardson v. State, 705 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). See also Hernandez v. State, 698 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), rev. denied, 613 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1992). Compare Johnson v. State, 702 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Horton v. State, 696 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus GRANTED. Decision AFFIRMED.
PETERSON, J., concurs.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs with result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aviles v. State, 794 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…r time served in a drug treatment program. See also Taylor v. State, 726 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The trial court also correctly denied the scoresheet error claims as mer-itless or not cognizable in a Rule 3.800(a) motion. See Mathis v. State, 738 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 751 So. 2d 51 (Fla.1999). AFFIRMED. SHARP, W. and ORFINGER, R.B., J.J., concur.…
-
Smith v. State, 875 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Aviles v. State, 794 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Mathis v. State, 738 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 751 So. 2d 51 (Fla.1999). SHARP, W., GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur.…
-
Paquette v. State, 922 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
Authorities Cited
- Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Hernandez v. State, 698 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Horton v. State, 696 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Reggie Johnson v. State, 702 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Arzy Richardson v. State, 705 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Nikolits v. Delaney, 719 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Letarius Mathis v. State, 719 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)