BRANDON STALLINGS, 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.
Brandon Stallings appeals his sentencing for escape and highway racing, contending the trial court erred by including prior out-of-state juvenile convictions committed when he was twelve years old in his Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet. The appellate court agreed that the prior offenses were improperly scored under Florida law and reversed for resentencing, holding that even though the scoresheet error did not change the applicable sentencing range, the trial court must use a correct scoresheet because the actual point total could affect judicial discretion within the permissible range.
The trial court improperly scored the 2.0 points for out-of-state prior offenses under section 921.0011(5), Florida Statutes. Although the error did not change the applicable sentencing range (both 42.2 and 40.2 points fall below 44, allowing non-state prison sanctions), the error was not harmless because the actual point total may affect the judge's discretion within the permissible sentencing range.
[1] Out-of-state juvenile convictions may not be scored as prior record offenses if they were committed more than five years prior to the date of parole termination.
[2] A criminal defendant must be sentenced using a correct scoresheet, and any error in the scoresheet requires resentencing.
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“If total sentence points are less than or equal to 44, the lowest permissible sentence is any non-state prison sanction.”
Establishes the sentencing guideline category applicable to both the incorrect (42.2) and corrected (40.2) point totals.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStallings, eighteen years old at the time of sentencing, was charged with escape and highway racing and entered into a plea agreement. He had prior co…
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 Guideline Sentencing Range cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant below, Brandon Stallings [“Stallings”], contends on appeal that the trial court erred with respect to sentencing. We agree and reverse.
On June 9, 2003, Stallings was charged in a two-count information with escape and highway racing. He entered into a plea agreement in open court. During the plea colloquy, it was adduced that Stallings was eighteen years old. He told the judge that he was “sentenced with eight months and [he] did almost three years” in an Illinois juvenile detention facility.
The State presented the Criminal Punishment Code Seoresheet to the court. The “prior record” section of the score-sheet included the offenses of aggravated fleeing and eluding for 1.6 points, leaving the scene of an accident for .2 points, and DUI for .2 points, for a total of 2.0 points. His total sentence points were 42.2. The seoresheet provided: “If total sentence points are less than or equal to 44, the lowest permissible sentence is any non-state prison sanction.” [Emphasis added.] Counsel for Stallings objected to the scoring of the prior offenses on the ground that the offenses were committed more than five years ago when Stallings was only twelve years old. The court determined that it was not error to include the prior offenses because the time under the statute was “five years from the date that his parole ... was terminated.” The court adjudicated Stallings guilty and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment in the Brevard County jail on Count I and sixty days’ imprisonment in the Brevard County jail on Count II, to be served concurrently.
On appeal, Stallings repeats his objection to scoring the prior out-of-state juvenile convictions. He asserts that the trial court misapplied section 921.0011(5), Florida Statutes. The State acknowledges that the 2.0 points for out-of-state prior offenses were improperly scored on Stall-ings’ seoresheet, but urges that any error in the seoresheet was harmless because Stallings’ guidelines range for sentencing would not change.
If the 2.0 points for prior record were deleted from Stallings’ seoresheet, he would have 40.2 total points rather than 42.2 total points. The seoresheet provides that when the points are less than 44, which they would be in either instance, the lowest permissible sentence is any non-state prison sanction. Stallings did receive a non-state prison sentence; however, there was a significant range within which the judge could choose to sentence and the number of points logically might affect the judge’s selection within the range.
During the plea colloquy, the court informed Stallings that escape was a “pretty serious charge.” The court also told Stall-ings that he could have hurt or killed someone while driving 85 m.p.h. in a 45 m.p.h. zone. Finally, the court stated it was not going to give Stallings probation as Stallings requested, noting that almost three years in juvenile detention did not help him. There is, in short, no indication whether Stallings’ sentence would have been any different if the 2.0 points for prior record had not been included on the scoresheet. However, because criminal defendants should be sentenced using a correct scoresheet, and we cannot be sure that the lower score would not have affected the sentencing decision, we reverse and remand for the trial court to resentence Stallings using a corrected scoresheet. We are unwilling to say that any error in a score below 44 points would be harmless simply because the same sentencing range applies.
REVERSED and remanded.
GRIFFIN, PLEUS and PALMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Anderson, 905 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2005)…tory maximum. See § 921.0024(2), Fla. Stat. (2003). Thus, any change reducing the total sentence points reduces the lowest permissible sentence. In such cases, courts also have applied the would-have-been-imposed test. See, e.g., Stallings v. State, 876 So. 2d 686, 688 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (reversing for resentencing based on a two-point error in the Code scoresheet and concluding that the court “[could not] be sure that the lower score would not have affected the sentencing decision”); White v. State, 873 So.…
-
Graham v. Haridopolos, 75 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…e of material differences in the language of the other states’ constitutional provisions and the language of article IX, section 7.6 Finally, Appellants argue that this court’s analysis of article IX, section 7 in NAACP v. Florida Board of Regents, 876 So. 2d 686, 639-40 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), definitively resolves this case their favor.7 However, that case has no bearing on the issue currently before the court. NAACP involved an administrative challenge to Board rules governing admission standards that had o…
-
Cosby v. State, 913 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…e reverse and remand for the trial court to resentence Stallings using a corrected scoresheet. We are unwilling to say that any error in a score below 44 points would be harmless simply because the same sentencing range applies. Stallings v. State, 876 So. 2d 686, 687-688 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Similarly, even the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s request for resentencing does not conclusively demonstrate that the trial court would have given the same sentence with the correct scoresheet. See Corona v.…