CURTIS BIGHAM, 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.
Curtis Bigham appeals the denial of his postconviction relief motion, challenging his sentence as illegal due to a sentencing guidelines scoresheet error. The court reverses in part, finding that the trial court improperly assessed additional firearm possession points on his 1994 robbery conviction scoresheet, and remands for the trial court to either prove the error was harmless or resentence Bigham with a corrected scoresheet.
The court reverses the trial court's denial of relief regarding the sentencing scoresheet error because the trial court failed to provide record attachments conclusively demonstrating that the error did not adversely affect Bigham's sentence. On remand, the trial court must either provide proof that the sentencing guidelines scoresheet error did not affect Bigham's sentence or resentence him with a corrected scoresheet.
[1] A sentencing guidelines scoresheet error is not harmless if the trial court fails to provide record attachments that conclusively refute the claim that the sentence was a…
[2] On remand, a trial court must either provide proof that a sentencing guidelines scoresheet error did not affect a defendant's sentence or resentence the defendant with a…
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“he was assessed an additional 18 points on his sentencing guidelines scoresheet for possession of a firearm with one of his robbery convictions”
Identifies the specific sentencing error that violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.703(d)(19)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBigham was sentenced on September 9, 1997, for violations of community control on two 1994 robbery offenses (receiving two concurrent six-year terms a…
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 Youthful Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Curtis Bigham appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, Bigham alleges claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and argues his sentence is illegal for various reasons. We reverse that portion of the trial court’s order which denies Bigham’s claim that his sentence on his 1994 offenses is illegal because, contrary to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.703(d)(19), he was assessed an additional 18 points on his sentencing guidelines scoresheet for possession of a firearm with one of his robbery convictions. We affirm the balance of the trial court’s order without discussion.
On September 9, 1997, Bigham was sentenced for a violation of community control of his two 1994 robbery offenses to two six-year concurrent prison terms as a Youthful Offender, and for a new 1997 drug possession conviction, to a five-year prison term. Bigham was correctly sentenced with two separate guidelines score-sheets and his sentences were ran consecutively. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.703(d)(3) (stating “[i]f an offender is before the court for sentencing for more than one felony and the felonies were committed under more than one version or revision of the guidelines, separate scoresheets must be prepared and used at sentencing. The sentencing court may impose such sentence concurrently or consecutively”).
Although the State, in its response to the trial court’s order to show cause, conceded that the additional 18 points should not have been included on Bigham’s score-sheet, it maintained that the additional points were harmless error because, even if the points were deducted, Bigham would still have a guidelines sentence. The State accordingly concluded the inclusion of the points did not adversely affect Bigham’s sentence.1
The trial court however provided no record attachments that conclusively refute Bigham’s claim that his sentence was adversely affected by the scoresheet error. In Prescott v. State, 698 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), the defendant appealed an order denying his rale 3.800 motion, and as in the present case, the State conceded that a guidelines scoresheet error existed, but argued the error was harmless because, even if a corrected scoresheet was used, Prescott’s sentence would be within the permitted range. See id. at 603. The Fourth District reversed the trial court’s denial of relief in respect to the sentencing errors in Prescott’s scoresheet, reasoning that the attached guidelines did not demonstrate that the scoresheet error did not affect Prescott’s sentence. See id. The Prescott court required the trial court, on remand, to provide proof that the error did not affect his sentence or to resentence him with a corrected scoresheet. See id.
In the case at bar, the record attachments provided by the trial court fail to demonstrate that the error did not affect Bigham’s sentence. See id. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court is required to provide proof that the sentencing guidelines scoresheet error did not affect Big-ham’s sentence or to resentence him with a corrected scoresheet.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur. . According to the scoresheet for Bigham's 1994 offenses attached to the trial court’s order, his sentencing range was 73.05 to 121.75 months. Without the additional points his sentencing range would be 59.55 to 99.25 months. Bigham received a sentence of 72 months.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Anderson, 905 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2005)…onceded scoresheet error raised in defendant’s 3.850 motion, for the trial court to “provide proof that the sentencing guidelines scoresheet error did not affect Knowles’ sentence or to re-sentence him with a corrected scoresheet”); Bigham v. State, 761 So. 2d 431, 432-33 (Fla. 2d DCA 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)…
-
Anderson v. State, 865 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ng such a generally applicable standard for determining whether scoresheet errors require resen-tencing. On the contrary, in Voss v. State, 808 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), Collins v. State, 788 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), and Bigham v. State, 761 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) — which were decided after Heggs — we have adhered to the view that a scoresheet error, like the error shown by Anderson, requires resentencing unless it can be shown conclusively that the same sentence would have been imposed if…
-
Jones v. State, 901 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…ng such a generally applicable standard for determining whether scoresheét errors require re-sentencing. On the contrary, in Voss v. State, 808 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), Collins v. State, 788 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), and Bigham v. State, 761 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)—which were decided after Heggs—we have adhered to the view that scoresheet error ... requires resentencing unless it can be shown conclusively that the same sentence would have been imposed if the corrected scoresheet had been use…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Prescott v. State, 698 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)