JOSEPH HERRMANN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Joseph Herrmann appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct a scoresheet error filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because Herrmann has stated a facially sufficient claim that is not refuted by the attachments to the trial court order, we reverse and remand for reconsideration. Herrmann alleges that a prior offense was erroneously scored as a level seven offense rather than a level six offense, thereby increasing his scoresheet total by five points. The trial court acknowledged that Herrmann’s sentencing scoresheet appeared to reflect the error identified by Herrmann. If Herrmann’s scoresheet was incorrect as identified by the trial court and his sentence was not negotiated as part of his plea agreement, Herrmann is entitled to be resentenced with a corrected scoresheet. See McPherson v. State, 750 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Reversed and remanded.
BLUE, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hoag v. State, 12 So. 3d 907 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…sentence of 336 months or twenty-eight years. Thus Mr. Hoag’s sentence for second-degree murder exceeded the maximum permissible sentence by 0.1 years. Errors in offense-level scoring are cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Herrmann v. State, 768 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). However, “if the trial court could have imposed the same sentence using a correct scoresheet, any error was harmless.” Brooks v. State, 969 So. 2d 238, 243 (Fla.2007). When a defendant is sentenced to the maximum guidelines sente…
Authorities Cited
- McPHERSON v. State, 750 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)