DONALD L. HILL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Donald Hill appealed an order denying his motion to correct sentencing errors, claiming scoring errors in his convictions for sexual battery and kidnapping. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding the sentencing calculations were correct, though it remanded for correction of a scrivener's error in the judgment that erroneously cited a weapon enhancement statute.
The court held that the sentences are correct and the scoresheet is properly calculated. While the judgment contains a scrivener's error by citing section 775.087, this citation error did not affect the sentencing order itself. The sexual battery convictions were correctly classified as life felonies, and the kidnapping was correctly classified as a first-degree felony punishable by life.
[1] A sexual battery conviction is a life felony if the defendant uses force likely to cause serious injury.
[2] Kidnapping is a first-degree felony punishable by life.
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“The crime of Sexual Battery is a life felony if during the course of its commission the Defendant uses a deadly weapon OR uses force likely to cause serious injury.”
Establishes the legal basis for classifying Hill's sexual battery convictions as life felonies based on the use of force likely to cause serious injury.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHill was convicted by jury of sexual battery using force likely to cause serious injury (counts 1, 2, and 4) and kidnapping (count 5). The sentencing …
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 Amended Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, J.
Donald L. Hill appeals an order denying his motion to correct sentencing error. We conclude that the sentences are correct.
Defendant-appellant Hill contends that there are scoring errors for his convictions.1 Judge Echarte correctly denied defendant’s claim, stating:
1. A jury found the Defendant guilty of Counts 1, 2, and 4 of the information. Specifically, they found he committed the crimes of Sexual Battery using force likely to cause serious injury. The crime of Sexual Battery is a life felony if during the course of its commission the Defendant uses a deadly weapon OR uses force likely to cause serious injury. See Fla. Stat. 794.011(3)2. Thus, the Defendant was convicted of a Life felony and his scoresheet correctly calculates that as his primary offense....
2. A jury found the Defendant guilty of kidnapping as charged in Count 5 of the information.3 The crime of kidnapping is a first degree felony punishable by life. See Fla. Stat. 787.01 . Thus, the Defendant’s scoresheet correctly calculates his additional offense as a first degree felony punishable by life.
See also State v. Riveron, 723 So. 2d 845, 846 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (kidnapping); Brown v. State, 682 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (sexual battery); Williams v. State, 678 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (sexual battery).
What has led to some confusion on the defendant’s part is the fact that the judgment erroneously includes a citation to section 775.087, Florida Statutes, for counts one, two, four, and five. Section 775.087 is the weapon enhancement statute. The citation to section 775.087 is a scrivener’s error in the judgment, since the jury did not convict the defendant of use of a weapon. We therefore direct that an amended judgment be entered, deleting the citation to section 775.087.
That scrivener’s error did not, however, affect the sentencing order. The judgment correctly classifies the levels of the felonies of which the defendant was convicted, and the scoresheet is correctly calculated. The defendant is not entitled to any sentencing relief.
Affirmed; remanded for correction of scrivener’s error in judgment.
. With respect to the claim of scoresheet error on the sexual battery counts, the motion is impermissibly successive. The claim has previously been denied on its merits.
With respect to the claim of scoring error on the kidnapping count, it appears that this claim has not previously been raised. We assume for present purposes that it is cognizable as a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
. The crime dales were March 19 and 24, 1990.
. The verdict indicates that the jury found defendant guilty of kidnapping without a weapon. Thus, there was no enhancement of this offense under subsection 775.087(1), Florida Statutes.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ewell v. State, 852 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…errors do not affect the sentence and do not require reversal. However, because the sentence was illegal and requires reversal anyway, the judgment should be corrected on remand. See Bell v. State, 798 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Hill v. State, 796 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Ewell also argues that combining multiple sentences for multiple counts on a single page of a general sentencing order is improper. This argument lacks merit. General sentences are those which impose a single sentence for multip…
-
Hill v. State, 816 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Hill v. State, 805 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Hill v. State, 796 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 682 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Williams v. State, 678 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- State v. Riveron, 723 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)