RODNEY ALLER, 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.
Appellant challenged his probation revocation sentence on three grounds. The court affirmed the finding of willful and substantial probation violation but reversed and remanded on two issues: the trial court used an erroneous scoresheet with improper legal status points, and it improperly denied appellant's motion for additional jail credit.
The court affirmed the finding of willful and substantial probation violation. However, the court reversed on the scoresheet issue because the 30 legal status points were erroneous and the error was not harmless, requiring resentencing with a corrected scoresheet. The court also reversed the denial of jail credit, finding the motion was not facially insufficient and requiring reconsideration including whether to award credit for time incarcerated in another jurisdiction.
[1] A sentence based on an erroneous scoresheet that results in a recommended and permitted sentencing range higher than that which would have been calculated with a correct…
[2] A court must resentence a defendant when an erroneous scoresheet affects the sentencing range and the appellate court cannot determine what sentence would have been impos…
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“A correctly calculated score-sheet would have shown a recommended and permitted range two cells lower than appeared on the erroneous scoresheet upon which appellant's sentence was based. The error was not harmless in this case.”
Establishes that the erroneous legal status points created non-harmless error requiring resentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was sentenced following revocation of probation. At sentencing, the trial court used a revised scoresheet that included 30 erroneous legal s…
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 Appeal From Judgment And Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant raises three issues in this appeal from his judgment and sentence following revocation of probation. We affirm without discussion as to appellant’s first claim, that the trial court abused its dis cretion in determining that appellant willfully and substantially violated his probation. We reverse, however, as explained below on appellant’s other two issues.
When appellant was sentenced, the court did not use appellant’s original score-sheet. Instead, it used a revised score-sheet with 30 legal status points added to it, points which the state concedes are erroneous. A correctly calculated score-sheet would have shown a recommended and permitted range two cells lower than appeared on the erroneous scoresheet upon which appellant’s sentence was based. The error was not harmless in this case. See Sellers v. State, 578 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), approved on other grounds, 586 So. 2d 340 (Fla.1991).
Because we cannot be sure what sentence the court would have imposed using the correct scoresheet, we vacate appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing with a corrected scoresheet. See Parrish v. State, 617 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Sellers, 578 So. 2d at 341.
Appellant also argues that the court erred in denying his request for additional jail credit. After imposition of judgment and sentence, appellant filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, requesting the award of additional jail credit toward his sentence and citing the pertinent arrest dates for the claim and other related information. The court erred in denying the claim as facially insufficient. See Whitaker v. State, 729 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the court to determine the proper amount of jail credit to which appellant is entitled. In addition, in light of the state’s argument in its answer brief, the court should consider whether to award jail credit for time incarcerated in another jurisdiction for the Florida offense. See Kronz v. State, 462 So. 2d 450 (Fla.1985).
Accord Tyson v. State, 773 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (reversing portion of order denying request for credit for time in custody in Illinois awaiting extradition to Florida for violation of probation for consideration of Kronz procedure); DeGeso v. State, 771 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reversing under Kronz because trial court did not understand its discretion to award jail credit for time served in another jurisdiction).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded with directions.
MINER, DAVIS and POLSTON, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Krause v. State, 857 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…spent in an Illinois jail. We therefore reverse the trial court’s summary denial and remand with directions for the trial court to exercise its discretion about whether to award the appellant the additional jail credit. See Aller [*344] v. State, 792 So. 2d 692, 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Harriman v. State, 798 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Tyson v. State, 773 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). REVERSED and REMANDED. KAHN, WEBSTER, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Kronz v. State, 462 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1985)
- Carter v. State, 586 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1991)
- Louie Anthony Sellers v. State, 578 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Fernandez v. Efigenia Nancy Fernandez, 578 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Am. Sightseeing Tours, Inc. v. Gerda Jackson, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- DeGESO v. State, 771 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Parrish v. State, 617 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Whitaker v. State, 729 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Tyson v. State, 773 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)