DARBY HOUSER, 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 claims of scoresheet error not apparent from the face of the scoresheet are not cognizable under rule 3.800, but rather under rule 3.850.
Darby Houser appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, alleging scoresheet errors. The motion was filed under rule 3.800 but c…
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 Error cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Darby Houser appeals the trial court’s order which denied his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. We affirm without prejudice to any right Houser might have to file a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850.
Houser alleges several claims of scoresheet error; however, such errors are not readily apparent from the face of the scoresheet. Such claims are not cognizable under rule 3.800, but rather, they are correctable on direct appeal or under rule 3.850. Drayton v. State, 786 So. 2d 1196, 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Smith v. State, 782 So. 2d 947, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Blakley v. State, 746 So. 2d 1182, 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Although Houser filed his motion pursuant to rule 3.800, it would have been timely filed under rule 3.850; however, the motion was not properly sworn.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Houser’s 3.800 motion. This affirmance is without prejudice to Houser filing a properly sworn 3.850 motion raising the issue of scoresheet error not apparent from the face of the score-sheet. Because the time to file a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850 expired while Houser’s appeal was pending in this court, he shall have sixty days from the issuance of the mandate in this case to file a 3.850 motion. See Finan v. State, 787 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
Affirmed.
CASANUEVA and CANADY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sweet v. State, 987 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…firmance is without prejudice for Sweet to file a properly sworn and facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion within thirty days from the issuance of the mandate in this case. See Heath v. State, 968 So. 2d 625, 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Houser v. State, 901 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Affirmed. SILBERMAN and KELLY, JJ. Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Blakley v. State, 746 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Drayton v. State, 786 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Smith v. State, 782 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Finan v. State, 787 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)