MICHAEL F. VOSS, 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 scoring errors on a defendant's scoresheet cannot be presumed harmless if they place the defendant in a different sentencing cell.
Michael F. Voss appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, alleging improper scoring of prior convictions on his scores…
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 Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, Judge.
Michael F. Voss appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Voss was originally sentenced under the 1993 guidelines to seven years’ prison followed by five years’ probation. He later violated his probation and was sentenced to nine years’ prison. Voss now alleges that multiple convictions were improperly scored in the prior record section of his scoresheet.
The trial court acknowledged that the scoresheet contained certain errors but concluded that the errors were harmless. We disagree. Because a corrected score-sheet places Voss in a different cell, the errors cannot be presumed harmless. See Sprankle v. State, 662 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Nor did the trial court attach any record documents conclusively demonstrating that Voss would have received the same sentence if the trial court had had the benefit of a correct scoresheet. See id. We therefore reverse the trial court’s or der and remand for further proceedings.1 If the trial court again summarily denies Voss’s motion, it must attach record documents demonstrating that he is not entitled to be resentenced. We affirm as to Voss’s remaining two claims without comment.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
COVINGTON, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, Concur. . We do not simply remand for resentencing because Voss's motion and brief suggest that he may have been sentenced pursuant to a negotiated plea. If this is the case, he may not be entitled to resentencing. It is impossible, however, to make this determination from the limited record now before the court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anderson v. State, 865 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…sing from the use of the invalid 1994 guidelines. This court has, however, not understood Heggs as establishing such a generally applicable standard for determining whether scoresheet errors require resen-tencing. On the contrary, in Voss v. State, 808 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), Collins v. State, 788 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), and Bigham v. State, 761 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) — which were decided after Heggs — we have adhered to the view that a scoresheet error, like the error shown by Anderson…
-
Jones v. State, 901 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…2d 624 (Fla.2004). In Anderson, the court wrote: This court has, however, not understood Heggs as establishing such a generally applicable standard for determining whether scoresheét errors require re-sentencing. On the contrary, in Voss v. State, 808 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), Collins v. State, 788 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), and Bigham v. State, 761 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)—which were decided after Heggs—we have adhered to the view that scoresheet error ... requires resentencing unless it can…
Authorities Cited
- Sprankle v. State, 662 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)