KAREN E. RICHMOND, 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.
Court affirmed denial of motion to correct illegal sentence, holding that the imposed sentence of 63 months plus 10 years probation was legal and within statutory maximum regardless of any scoresheet errors or potential double jeopardy issues.
A sentence within the legal maximum is valid even if sentencing guidelines scoresheets contain errors or if some offenses may be subject to double jeopardy challenges.
[1] A sentence within the legal statutory maximum is valid and need not be corrected even if sentencing guidelines scoresheets contain calculation errors, provided the correc…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKaren Richmond entered a plea to multiple offenses across three circuit court cases and received a sentence of 63 months imprisonment followed by 10 y…
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 Legal Maximum Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Karen E. Richmond appeals an order denying her motion to correct illegal sentence in which she claims, among other things, errors in calculation of the sentencing guidelines scoresheet or scoresheets used at the time she entered her plea. As we interpret the plea colloquy, the agreement was that the defendant would enter a plea to multiple offenses in three circuit court cases with the court being allowed to impose any sentence up to the legal maximum. As the sentence actually imposed, sixty-three months followed by ten years probation, is well within the legal maximum, correction of the scoresheets (assuming for purposes of discussion that there is any error) would serve no useful purpose. The sentence imposed is a legal one. See Quarterman v. State, 527 So. 2d 1380 (Fla.1988); Dunenas v. Moore, 762 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). The defendant also claims that two offenses to which she entered pleas are barred by double jeopardy. See Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla.1994).
It is not clear from the face of the record that there is such a double jeopardy problem, but in any event, the elimination of the two claimed duplicative offenses would not make a practical difference in the sentence and thus we decline to entertain the defendant’s argument on this point. See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 292 (Fla.2003); Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898, 903 (Fla.1979).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 905 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…ing a corrected scoresheet for the burglary would not affect his overall sentence and would therefore be an exercise in futility. See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla.2003); McCoy v. State, 876 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Richmond v. State, 867 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Hummel v. State, 782 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). We therefore affirm the order under review. Affirmed.…
-
Richmond v. State, 876 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…3.800(a). To the extent that defendant-appellant Richmond argues for correction of the sentencing guidelines scoresheet, or that she should be re-scored on a different scoresheet, we affirm the order denying relief on authority of Richmond v. State, 867 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). The defendant argues that she is not being awarded the correct amount of gain time under the gain time statute. See generally § 944.275, Fla. Stat. (2003). Under established precedent, the defendant must first exhaust her admin…
Authorities Cited
- Gissendanner v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)
- Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1994)
- THE Florida BAR v. Mullins, 527 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1988)
- Durwin D. Dunenas v. Moore, 762 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)