DAVID HORACE HAMMETT, 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.
David Horace Hammett appealed the denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, raising two grounds. The appellate court found that the trial court committed a clear error by miscalculating Hammett's sentencing scoresheet, and because the corrected score would have placed him in a different guideline range, the error could not be presumed harmless without clear evidence the trial court would have imposed the same sentence.
The court reversed and remanded for resentencing, holding that when a corrected scoresheet places the defendant in a different cell, the error cannot be presumed harmless unless the record conclusively shows the trial court would have imposed the same sentence had it known the correct score.
[1] A miscalculation on a sentencing scoresheet cannot be presumed harmless when a corrected scoresheet places the defendant in a different sentencing cell, unless the record…
[2] A defendant is entitled to postconviction relief when a sentencing scoresheet error is not harmless and the record does not conclusively demonstrate the trial court would…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“when a corrected scoresheet places the defendant in a different cell, the error cannot be presumed to be harmless, unless the record conclusively shows the trial court would have imposed the same sentence had it known the correct score.”
Establishes the legal standard for harmless error review of sentencing scoresheet miscalculations, citing Sprankle v. State
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHammett's sentencing scoresheet contained two errors: an improper assessment of victim injury points and an error in calculating points for prior offe…
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 Error cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1191] PER CURIAM.
David Horace Hammett appeals the summary denial of his motion for postcon-viction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Hammett raises two grounds in support of his motion, only one of which we find has merit. We reverse and remand for resentencing on this issue only. The court’s order is affirmed in all other respects.
Hammett contends, and the trial court conceded, that there had been a miscalculation on his sentencing scoresheet. The error consisted of an improper assessment of victim injury points, as well as an error in calculating points for prior offenses. The trial court found that, even though the error existed, the sentence still fell within the permissible guidelines range. Therefore, the court concluded that Hammett was not entitled to relief.
In reaching its conclusion, the trial court overlooked this court’s holding in Sprankle v. State, 662 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In Sprankle, the trial court denied a motion for postconviction relief. This court reversed, holding that when a corrected scoresheet places the defendant in a different cell, the error cannot be presumed to be harmless, unless the record conclusively shows the trial court would have imposed the same sentence had it known the correct score. See id. at 737. The holding in Sprankle is applicable to Hammett’s claim under the sentencing guidelines. See Eblin v. State, 677 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
Here, in the transcript of the plea colloquy attached to the motion, the trial court specifically stated it would sentence Hammett to the bottom of the guidelines. In keeping with this statement, the trial court imposed a sentence of 40.35 months, the minimum within the recommended range based upon the incorrect scoring. The range with the correct score would be 29.4 to 49 months. As the record does not conclusively demonstrate the trial court would have given Hammett the same sentence if the scoresheet had been properly calculated, we reverse and remand for re-sentencing on this issue only.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
PATTERSON, C.J., and BLUE and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Anderson, 905 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2005)…A 2000) (reversing the summary denial of defendant’s 3.850 claim of scoresheet error for record attachments conclusively proving that the error did not affect the defendant’s sentence or for resentencing with a correct scoresheet); Hammett v. State, 746 So. 2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (reversing for resentencing, where the trial court conceded error, the summary denial of the defendant’s scoresheet error claim under rule 3.850 because the “record d[id] not conclusively demonstrate the trial court would ha…
-
Cardali v. State, 794 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…e, e.g., Shropshire v. State, 775 [*723] So. 2d 349 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Jackson v. State, 762 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Frazier v. State, 762 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Reyes v. State, 752 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Hammett v. State, 746 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Johnson v. State, 715 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The trial court found that Cardali was sentenced to an enhanced sentence outside of the guidelines, such that if there were mistakes on the guidelines scoresheet they would n…
Authorities Cited
- Sprankle v. State, 662 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Eblin v. State, 677 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)