ROBIN M. HUMMEL, 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.
Robin Hummel appeals the denial of her motion for resentencing based on alleged scoresheet errors and miscalculation of gain-time credits. The court affirmed the denial, holding that although her scoresheet contained an error in prior record points, the harmless error analysis under Heggs v. State required affirmance because her actual sentence could have been imposed under a corrected scoresheet.
Hummel is not entitled to resentencing. Although the scoresheet contained an error reducing her prior record points from 26 to 19 (a one-cell reduction), under the harmless error analysis from Heggs v. State, resentencing is not required when the sentence imposed could have been imposed under the corrected scoresheet without a departure.
[1] A scoresheet error is harmless if a corrected scoresheet places the appellant in the same sentencing cell or if the appellant would have received the same sentence, such…
[2] Under the Heggs rationale, a defendant is not entitled to resentencing if their sentence imposed under an erroneous scoresheet could have been imposed under a corrected s…
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“where a guidelines scoresheet error results in a reduced sentencing range of one cell or more, the sentence must be reversed and the case remanded for resentencing based upon a correctly calculated scoresheet.”
Establishes the general rule for scoresheet errors, citing Burrows v. State
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHummel was sentenced using a scoresheet that the trial court stated included five prior misdemeanors, yielding 26 prior record points. However, the sc…
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 Motion For Resentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, C.J.
Robin Hummel appeals the summary denial of her rule 3.800(a) motion. She seeks resentencing based upon an error in her scoresheet and the trial court’s misapprehension of her gain-time credits. As neither claim has merit, we affirm, but comment on the first claim.
The appellant alleges in her first claim that she should only have been assessed 19 points for her prior record, which would place her one cell lower than she originally scored. This Court has previously held that “where a guidelines scoresheet error results in a reduced sentencing range of one cell or more, the sentence must be reversed and the case remanded for resentencing based upon a correctly calculated scoresheet.” Burrows v. State, 649 So. 2d 902, 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). A scoresheet error is harmless, however, where a corrected scoresheet places the appellant in the same cell or where the appellant would have received the same sentence, such as in plea bargain situations. See id.
However, in Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000), the supreme court announced a new harmless error analysis to be applied in dealing with scoresheet inaccuracies. Using the Heggs rationale, we conclude that if a person’s sentence imposed under an erroneous scoresheet could have been imposed under a corrected scoresheet (without a departure) then that person shall not be entitled to resentencing.
The scoresheet used by the trial court shows that the appellant’s prior record includes three third-degree felonies and one misdemeanor. These felonies score 18 points, and the misdemeanor scores one point. This gives a total of 19 points. In its order denying this motion, however, the trial court stated that the appellant had five prior misdemeanors. Adding points for four additional misdemeanors brings the prior record points to 26, which is the paragraph total on the original scoresheet.
However, neither the scoresheet nor the record reflects the additional four misdemeanors in appellant’s prior record.
Additionally, the record does not reflect that the appellant’s sentence was a result of a valid plea bargain. Although the appellant’s total points would result in a one-cell reduced sentencing range, the recommended sentence would be the same as imposed and the imposed sentence would be within the new range. Based on the rationale of Heggs, we affirm.
WOLF and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Brooks v. State, 969 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2007)…2d 640, 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). On the other hand, the First District had concluded that sentence scoresheet error raised by postconviction motion was harmless if the sentence could have been imposed under a correct scoresheet. See Hummel v. State, 782 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). After examining the historical changes in the statutory criminal sentencing schemes and the district courts’ treatment of such errors, both on direct appeal and in postconviction motions, we noted that most courts applied the wo…
-
State v. Anderson, 905 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2005)…r requires resentencing unless the record conclusively shows that the same sentence would have been imposed using a correct scoresheet. See Anderson v. State, 865 So. 2d 640, 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). The court certified conflict with Hummel v. State, 782 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), which applied a cottM-have-been-im-posed test. Under that test, scoresheet error does not require resentencing if the sentence could have been imposed (absent a departure) with a correct scoresheet.1 This test is much more diffi…
-
Anderson v. State, 865 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…use the ninety-month sentence previously imposed “is within the corrected range.” In reaching the conclusion that Anderson was not entitled to relief, the postconviction court relied on Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000), and Hummel v. State, 782 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). In Heggs, which invalidated the statute adopting the 1995 sentencing guidelines, the supreme court held that “if a person’s sentence imposed under the 1995 guidelines could have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines (without a…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Burrows v. State, 649 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)