DAVID MARTY, 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 defendant is entitled to be resentenced if their sentencing scoresheet was improperly calculated, even if the original sentence falls within the corrected guidelines range.
David Marty pleaded guilty to several offenses and was sentenced. He later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming his scoresheet 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 Scoresheet Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
David Marty appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand.
Marty pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, attempted manslaughter, shooting at, within, or into a building, and minor in possession of a firearm. He was subsequently sentenced to a three-year minimum mandatory prison term for the aggravated assault count and received five years probation, to run concurrently, on the counts of attempted manslaughter and shooting at, within, or into a building. He received county jail with time served on the minor in possession of a firearm charge. On May 29, 2002, Marty admitted to a violation of the terms of his probation for the counts of attempted manslaughter and shooting at, within, or into a building. The trial court then sentenced him to 81.35 months in prison, which was the minimum sentence within the calculations of the sentencing guidelines scoresheet.
Marty claims his scoresheet was improperly calculated because it incorrectly listed his May 29, 1998, conviction for aggravated assault as an additional offense. This resulted in an additional eighteen points be ing improperly added to his scoresheet. The trial court admits this error and asserts that because the corrected score-sheet would result in a range between 67.95 and 113.25 months, the sentence of 81.35 months imposed on Marty is legal because it is still within the sentencing guidelines. There is nothing in the record to conclusively demonstrate that Marty would have received 81.35 months under the corrected sentencing guidelines. Therefore, Marty is entitled to be resen-tenced using an accurate scoresheet. See Walker v. State, 807 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to resentence Marty under the corrected scoresheet.
Reversed and remanded.
SALCINES and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson v. State, 877 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…g in the record to conclusively demonstrate that Wilson would have received a sentence of ninety-five months under the corrected sentencing scoresheet. Therefore, Wilson is entitled to be resentenced using an accurate scoresheet. See Marty v. State, 865 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Anderson v. State, 865 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Walker v. State, 807 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to resentence Wilson under a corrected scoresheet. As we did in An…
Authorities Cited
- Stagl v. Bridgers, 807 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)