CARLOS CESAR HERNANDEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2001-01-31
No. 3D99-1259
Before COPE, GERSTEN and GREEN, JJ.
776 So. 2d 356 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2001) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Hernandez appeals his resentencing after revocation of community control, arguing that the trial court erred by adding previously unscored misdemeanor counts to his sentencing scoresheet during a Rule 3.800(b) motion to correct sentencing error. The court affirmed, holding that trial courts may correct omitted prior convictions on a guidelines scoresheet during resentencing regardless of whether the resentencing was initiated by a sentencing error motion.


Holding

Yes. The trial court properly included the previously unscored misdemeanor counts on the revised scoresheet. Trial courts have authority to correct omitted offenses on a guidelines scoresheet during resentencing, and this authority applies regardless of whether resentencing is initiated by a Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion. When a defendant received the benefit of a scoresheet error, justice is not served by perpetuating that error upon resentencing.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court may correct a sentencing scoresheet to include prior convictions that were mistakenly omitted, even if the defendant initiated the resentencing process thro…

[2] When a defendant is resentenced following a revocation of community control or probation, the trial court has the authority to revise the guidelines scoresheet to include…

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

Key Quotes

“When [defendant] was originally sentenced, he received the benefit of a mistake in his guidelines scoresheet. Now that he has committed a new crime and violated his probation, we see no reason to perpetuate the error. Justice is not served by awarding a defendant something to which he is not entitled.”

Establishes the core principle that trial courts may correct omitted convictions in a scoresheet during resentencing to prevent perpetuating an erroneous benefit

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Hernandez was originally sentenced after revocation of community control to sixty months incarceration. While his appeal was pending, he filed a Rule …

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.


Opinion of the Court
COPE, J.

COPE, J.

Carlos Cesar Hernandez appeals the sentences imposed after revocation of community control, claiming scoresheet error. We conclude that the scoring was correct and affirm.

After revocation of community control, defendant-appellant Hernandez was sentenced to sixty months incarceration. While his appeal was pending, he filed a motion in the trial court to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). He contended, and the trial court agreed, that he was entitled to be resentenced under the 1994 sentencing guidelines.*

The trial court vacated defendant’s sentences and a new scoresheet was prepared. This resulted in score reductions on defendant’s felony offenses.

During the sentencing proceeding, however, it also became clear that the previous scoresheet had omitted scoring for three misdemeanors which were part of circuit court case number 95-9199. At the time of defendant’s original plea in that case in 1996, sentence had been suspended on the three misdemeanor counts.

Over defendant’s objection, the trial court included scores for the misdemeanor counts on the scoresheet as additional offenses, resulting in the addition of six-tenths of a point. The trial court then resentenced the defendant to the score-sheet maximum, 27.5 months, and defendant has appealed.

Defendant argues that “[o]n a Rule 3.800(b) motion to correct a sentencing error, made during the pendency of an appeal, the trial court could not go beyond the sentencing errors identified in the motion, and could not augment the maximum sentence indicated upon the correction of the specified error by considering and adding to the sentencing scoresheet new items never considered or scored before.” Initial brief at 7.

We believe the settled law is contrary to the defendant’s position. In Roberts v. State, 644 So. 2d 81 (Fla.1994), the court considered “the issue of whether, in resentencing a defendant after a revocation of probation, a court has authority to revise a guidelines scoresheet to include prior convictions that were mistakenly omitted from the original through no fault of the defendant.” Id. at 81. The court concluded the answer is yes. “When [defendant] was originally sentenced, he received the benefit of a mistake in his guidelines score-sheet. Now that he has committed a new crime and violated his probation, we see no reason to perpetuate the error. Justice is not served by awarding a defendant something to which he is not entitled.” Id. at 82.

In Martinez v. State, 770 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), the court held “that it is proper to correct the original scoresheet when determining whether a defendant should be resentenced under Heggs.” Id. at 213 (citation omitted).

It makes no difference to the analysis that the resentencing has been initiated by a motion to correct sentencing error under Rule 3.800(b)(2).

Affirmed.

*

With respect to circuit court case number 97-14202, this was on account of Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). With respect to circuit court case number 95-9199, the 1994 guidelines were the ones in effect at the time of the offense.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • State v. Marshall, 869 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
    …defendant is not being sentenced for “precisely the same conduct” .... [Cites omitted]. Roberts, 644 So. 2d at 82. See also Aponte v. State, 810 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Atkins v. State, 787 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Hernandez v. State, 776 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). In the present case the trial court awarded Mr. Marshall a downward departure sentence after the violation of probation without giving valid reasons for doing so. See § 921.00265(2), Fla. Stat. (2000). The statutory reasons for…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw