NATHANIEL GRANT, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed cocaine sale and battery convictions but remanded for resentencing on the battery count due to a scoresheet error that included points for an uncharged offense, rejecting the State's harmless-error argument based on concurrent sentencing.
A sentencing scoresheet error that includes points for an uncharged offense requires resentencing even when the defendant is serving a longer concurrent sentence on another count, as Florida courts reject the concurrent sentence doctrine.
[1] A sentencing scoresheet error that includes points for an uncharged offense requires resentencing even when a concurrent sentence on another count exceeds the erroneous s…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Florida courts generally do not adhere to 'the concurrent sentence doctrine,' which is essentially what the State is advocating.”
Court rejecting State's argument that the scoresheet error was harmless because Grant was serving a longer concurrent sentence for the cocaine sale.
Nathaniel Grant was convicted of sale of cocaine and battery on a detained person. The trial court imposed a 63-month sentence on the battery charge u…
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
FULMER, Acting Chief Judge.
Nathaniel Grant appeals his convictions for sale of cocaine and battery on a detained person. We affirm the convictions, but remand for resentencing on the battery conviction only.
Of the three issues raised, we find merit in only one. Grant argues, and the State concedes, that due to a scoresheet error, the 63-month sentence imposed on the battery charge is in excess of the statutory maximum. The scoresheet contains points for possession of cocaine as an additional offense at conviction, although that crime was not charged. The State argues, however, that the scoresheet error is harmless because Grant is serving a longer concurrent sentence for the sale of cocaine count than the 63 months he received for the battery count. We reject this contention. Florida courts generally do not adhere to “the concurrent sentence doctrine,” which is essentially what the State is advocating. See Smith v. State, 613 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), disapproved of on other grounds, Bradley v. State, 631 So. 2d 1096 (Fla.1994); Uptagrafft v. State, 499 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). We, therefore, remand for resentencing on the battery conviction only.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
NORTHCUTT and GREEN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lovitto Melecio v. State, 879 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…n prison. Florida courts generally do not adhere to the concurrent sentence doctrine, which is essentially what the State is advocating. Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla.2000); Seccia v. State, 786 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Grant v. State, 756 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2000). Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s conviction as to Count VI, which charges a second conspiracy, and vacate appellant’s adjudication and sentence on that count. WOLF, C.J., BROWNING, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- L.C. Bradley v. State, 631 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 1994)
- Hardy v. City OF Orlando, 613 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Coleman Jerome Smith v. State, 613 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Hampton v. State, 499 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)