CHARLES FERGUSON, 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 denial of the motion regarding the primary offense classification but rejected the state's procedural argument for denial. The court also noted that motions for rehearing are not authorized under rule 3.800(a).
Charles Ferguson filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, alleging his sentencing guidelines scoresheet was miscalculated due to misclassificati…
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 Scoresheet Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence, Charles Ferguson alleged that his sentencing guidelines scoresheet was miscalculated because his primary offense was misclassified as a category 9 offense. We affirm the denial of his motion on that allegation. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.701(c)(1989).
However, we reject the state’s argument that denial was proper because Ferguson failed to attach a copy of the scoresheet to his motion. A movant is required only to allege what part of the record demonstrates an entitlement to relief. Toro v. State, 719 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). There is no requirement that he physically attach the record excerpt to the motion.
Ferguson raised an additional challenge to the scoresheet calculations in his motion for rehearing. Motions for rehearing are not authorized under rule 3.800(a). Wright v. State, 643 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Because an error in the calculation of a scoresheet can be corrected at any time, affirmance is without prejudice to Ferguson to file a new motion in the trial court that includes that allegation.
WARNER, C.J., STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Petscher v. State, 936 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…es entitlement to the relief requested.’). Appellant failed to even reference the record. An allegation that the Broward County jail records demonstrated his entitlement to relief would have complied with Toro.” (emphasis added)); Ferguson v. State, 746 So. 2d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“A movant is required only to allege what part of the record demonstrates an entitlement to relief.”) (citing Toro). It is beyond doubt that Petscher’s motion is facially sufficient and complies with the Mancino requireme…
-
Mancini v. State, 789 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…The case is remanded for further proceedings on the merits of Mancini’s motion. We again reject the state’s argument that denial was required because Mancini did not physically attach a copy of his scoresheet to his motion. See Ferguson v. State, 746 So. 2d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). POLEN, C.J., WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.…
-
White v. State, 886 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…rd is transmitted to the appellate court.” Wyche v. State, 624 So. 2d 830, 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). According to Rule 3.800(a), “[a] movant is required only to allege what part of the record demonstrates an entitlement to relief.” Ferguson v. State, 746 So. 2d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Appellant met these requirements. Generally, Rule 3.800(a) is appropriate only where the claim can be resolved from the face of the record, ie., without resort to fact-finding after an evidentiary hearing. See Maynard v. S…
Authorities Cited
- Hardy v. Hon. Taylor Douglas, 719 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Wright v. State, 643 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)