BRADLEY SMITH, 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 a Rule 3.800(a) motion is not the proper vehicle to challenge the number of probation violations used for a guideline scoresheet bump-up, and the defendant's claim was factually refuted by the record.
The defendant appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing his sentence was improper due to an incorrect 'bump-up…
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) cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
Bradley Smith appeals the trial court’s order which summarily denied his Rule 3.800(a) motion. We affirm. •
Smith’s motion claims that his sentence is illegal because the trial court improperly imposed a three cell “bump-up” in his guideline scoresheet. Smith claims he should have received only a two-cell bump instead, as he allegedly violated his probation on two occasions, not three.
Smith is not entitled to the relief requested by using a Rule 3.800(a) motion. His claim is beyond the scope of Rule 3.800(a) because the number of times that a defendant violates probation is not readily ascertainable from the face of a written sentence. In any event, Smith’s claim is conclusively refuted by the attachments to the trial court’s order, which reflect that Smith does, in fact, have three separate violations of probation in his criminal history. Under Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1992), a defendant’s permitted sentencing range may be bumped up one cell for each violation of probation when there have been multiple violations.
AFFIRMED.
HARRIS and PALMER, JJ., concur.