KEITH A. SCHLACHTER, 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.
The court reversed and remanded a trial court's order denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on the unconstitutional 1995 sentencing guidelines. The trial court erroneously found the sentence would have been proper under the 1994 guidelines due to a mathematical error in calculating guideline points for level 6 felonies.
The sentence cannot be imposed under a correctly calculated 1994 guidelines scoresheet without constituting a departure. Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to relief and must be resentenced under the 1994 guidelines.
[1] Claims that a sentence was imposed under an unconstitutional guidelines amendment may be raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence.
[2] A defendant is not entitled to relief if a sentence imposed under unconstitutional guidelines could have been imposed under prior valid guidelines without a departure.
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“If the sentence imposed under the 1995 guidelines could have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines without a departure then the defendant is not entitled to relief.”
Establishes the legal standard for determining whether a defendant is entitled to resentencing under the unconstitutional 1995 guidelines.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKeith Schlachter was sentenced under the 1995 sentencing guidelines. He moved to correct an illegal sentence under Heggs v. State, which established t…
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 Heggs Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon motion for rehearing we withdraw the previous order of this court and substitute the following opinion.
The trial court’s 1 May 2000 order denying the defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence was based on a finding that the sentence would be proper under both the 1994 and 1995 guidelines.
Initially, it should be noted that claims under Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000), asserting that a sentence was imposed under the unconstitutional 1995 guidelines amendment may properly be raised in a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. See Gault v. State, 762 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). If the sentence imposed under the 1995 guidelines could have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines without a departure then the defendant is not entitled to relief. See Heggs, 759 So. 2d at 627.
The trial court determined that the defendant’s sentence could have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines. In support of this conclusion the trial court prepared and attached a 1994 guidelines seoresheet. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.702 and 3.990. However, there appears to be an error in the calculation of the 1994 score-sheet. The 1994 seoresheet reflects two “level 6” felonies as “additional offenses” and scores them as 18 points each. Under the 1994 guidelines “level 6” felonies as “additional offenses” are only scored 7.2 points each. The sentence imposed would be a departure sentence under a correctly calculated 1994 guidelines seoresheet. On remand, the trial court is ordered to resen-tence the defendant under the 1994 guidelines pursuant to Heggs.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
THOMPSON, C.J., GRIFFIN and PLEUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Brooks v. State, 762 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Gault v. State, 762 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)