OLIVER RUSSELL, 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 held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to correct sentence because a scoresheet error was apparent from the face of the record.
Appellant challenged his sentence scoresheet, alleging an error in points for prior offenses. The scoresheet listed four third-degree felonies, but th…
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 Rule 3.800(A) Motion To Correct Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals an order denying his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct his sentence which alleged an error on his scoresheet in the number of points reflected for prior offenses. We disagree with the trial court's conclusion that no scoresheet error was apparent from the “face of the record.” The scoresheet shows, under “prior record,” three convictions of grand theft and one conviction of burglary, all of which are shown as third degree felonies. If they were correctly scored, they would total forty-six points on the scoresheet. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.988(j)III. The number of points included for these four felonies, however, is sixty-three points.
The state speculates that one of the four prior felonies was actually a second degree felony, because under those circumstances, sixty-three points would have been correct. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.988(j)III. If the state can demonstrate that sixty-three points was correct for the four prior felonies, based on the record in this case,1 then appellant is not entitled to relief. If 'the state cannot, the scoresheet should be corrected on remand to reflect the correct number of points for the four prior third degree felonies which, according to appellant’s motion, will reduce his sentence. Reversed.
KLEIN, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. . Atwood v. State, 765 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)(scoresheel error can be corrected under rule 3.800(a), even though the error does not appear on the face of the scoresheet, if the error can be demonstrated by the "record available in the circuit court”). McCullough v. State, 777 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(following Atwood).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 803 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…under rule 3.800(a) in Atwood v. State, 765 So. 2d 242, 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), we noted that “the record ... refers to the entire written record available in the circuit court, not just to the limited record on appeal.” See also Russell v. State, 782 So. 2d 992 & n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). WThere Atwood alleged the errors were present on the face of the record, we reversed the order summarily denying relief and remanded with instructions to the trial court to determine whether the motion could be resolved o…
-
Jefferson v. State, 830 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…ase 1 as a prior offense increased the total points from the original scoresheet by 71 points (46 plus 25). This raised appellant’s total score from 205 to 276 points. Such score-sheet errors are cognizable under Rule 3.800(a). See Russell v. State, 782 So. 2d 992, 993 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). [*198] The state acknowledges that when a court sentences a defendant for a violation of probation, the court must use the original scoresheet. The state also acknowledges the difference in points between the original…
Authorities Cited
- Forrest Atwood v. State, 765 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- McCULLOUGH v. State, 777 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)