RANDALL SASSER, 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.
Sasser appealed a trial court's summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The court found that while the trial court properly corrected Sasser's scoresheet, it erred in refusing to resentence him in case number 02-3308 where his sentence of 70.3 months exceeded the corrected lowest permissible sentence of 58.05 months but fell within the statutory maximum of 60 months for a third-degree felony.
The trial court properly refused to reduce Sasser's sentence in case number 99-4438 (where he was sentenced as a habitual felony offender), but erred in refusing to resentence Sasser in case number 02-3308. Because the corrected scoresheet's lowest permissible sentence of 58.05 months is below the statutory maximum of 60 months, Sasser must be resentenced to a term between 58.05 and 60 months in case number 02-3308.
[1] A trial court must resentence a defendant when a corrected Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet results in a lowest permissible sentence below the original sentence impose…
[2] A sentence imposed for a third-degree felony cannot exceed the statutory maximum of 60 months' imprisonment.
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“Appellant must be sentenced between his Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet lowest permissible sentence and the statutory maximum.”
Establishes the legal standard for proper sentencing once a scoresheet is corrected.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn November 6, 2002, Sasser was convicted of probation violation (burglary and grand theft) and felony petit theft, all third-degree felonies. He was …
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 Criminal Punishment Code Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because the record does not conclusively refute Appellant’s claim that his sentence in case number 02-3308 exceeds the statutory maximum, we reverse.
On November 6, 2002, Appellant was convicted of violating his probation in case number 99-4483 on the crimes of burglary of an unoccupied structure and grand theft, and of felony petit theft in case number 02-3308. All of Appellant’s convictions were third-degree felonies punishable by up to 60 months’ imprisonment. §§ 810.02; 812.014; 775.082(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (1999); §§ 812.014; 775.082(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (2002). He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 70.3 months’ imprisonment, which was the lowest permissible sentence under his Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet. Appellant was sentenced as a habitual felony offender on case number 99-4438, but not on 02-3308.
Appellant filed a motion to correct his illegal sentence, alleging that his score-sheet contained an error that would reduce his lowest permissible sentence below the statutory maximum for third-degree felonies. The trial court corrected Appellant’s scoresheet, which resulted in his lowest permissible sentence being reduced to 58.05 months’ imprisonment. However, the trial court refused to reduce Appellant’s sentences of 70.3 months’ imprisonment.
Because Appellant was sentenced as a habitual felony offender, it was proper for the trial court to refuse to reduce Appellant’s sentences in case number 99-4438. § 775.084(4)(h), Fla. Stat. (1999); Payton v. State, 810 So. 2d 539, 540 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). However, the trial court erred in refusing to resentence Appellant in accordance with the corrected scoresheet in case number 02-3308. Appellant must be sentenced between his Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet lowest permissible sentence and the statutory maximum. See Butler v. State, 838 So. 2d 554, 555-56 (Fla. 2003); Daniels v. State, 838 So. 2d 617, 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); §§ 921.002(g), 921.0024(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). As corrected, Appellant’s lowest permissible sentence of 58.05 months’ imprisonment is below the statutory maximum of 60 months for a third-degree felony. Therefore, in case number 02-3308, Appellant had to be sentenced to a sentence between 58.05 months’ imprisonment and the statutory maximum of 60 months’ imprisonment.
We therefore reverse the trial court’s summary denial and remand for the trial court to attach portions of the record that conclusively refute Appellant’s claim or to grant Appellant’s requested relief.
AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED in part; and REVERSED in part.
BOOTH, BENTON and LEWIS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Winyatta Butler v. State, 838 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2003)
- Helmadollar v. State, 810 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Daniels v. State, 838 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)