DOUGLAS ISOM, 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.
Douglas Isom appealed an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming scoring errors on sentencing guidelines and inadequate departure reasons. The court affirmed the denial of most claims but reversed and remanded for determination of Isom's claim for additional credit for time served.
The court held that even assuming additional scoring errors existed, any such error would be harmless given that two separate judges each concluded Isom should be sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual offender. The claim regarding inadequate departure reasons raised a factual issue barred by the statute of limitations. However, under the amended Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) and State v. McBride, Isom's claim for proper credit for time served could be entertained, requiring remand for determination.
[1] Errors in a sentencing guidelines scoresheet are harmless if a defendant is sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment after multiple sentencing proceedings be…
[2] A claim that departure reasons for a habitual offender sentence were inadequate does not render a sentence illegal for purposes of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.80…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“even if there were errors in the guidelines scoresheet as the defendant has claimed, any such error would be harmless in view of the fact that after two separate sentencing proceedings before two separate judges, each trial judge concluded that the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual offender”
Establishes the harmless error standard the court applied to additional scoring error claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIsom was sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual offender after two separate sentencing proceedings before two separate judges. He claimed additi…
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 Escalating Pattern Of Criminal Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Douglas Isom appéals an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Defendant-appellant Isom argues that there are two scoring errors on his sentencing guidelines scoresheet, other than the scoring errors discussed in Isom v. State, 750 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), and Isom v. State, 800 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Assuming that is so, the defendant is not entitled to relief. We have previously held that, even if there were errors in the guidelines scoresheet as the defendant has claimed, any such error would be harmless in view of the fact that after two separate sentencing proceedings before two separate judges, each trial judge concluded that the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual offender. Isom, 750 So. 2d at 735-36. The claim of additional scoring errors does not change that analysis.
The defendant also claims that one of his earliest convictions was for a first degree felony punishable by life imprisonment, and that if this had been -correctly understood, it would have undercut the trial court’s finding at his sentencing that there was an escalating pattern of criminal conduct in his case.* This claim raises a factual issue which had to be pursued under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The claim-is therefore, time barred. A claim that departure reasons were inadequate does not render a sentence “illegal” for purposes of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). See Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193, 1197 (Fla. 1995), receded from in part on other grounds, Mack v. State, 823 So. 2d 746, 748 (Fla.2002).
The defendant also argues that the trial court failed to grant him 830 days of credit for time served in jail prior to trial. This court previously affirmed the denial of such relief in Isom v. State, 800 So. 2d 292, 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). The theory was that affirmance of the defendant’s sentence on direct,appeal precluded a subsequent. claim for credit for time, served.
We conclude, however, that under the amended version of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), the defendant’s claim may be entertained. The amended rule states, “A court may at any" time correct ... k sentence that does not grant proper credit for time served when it is affirmatively alleged that the court records demonstrate on their face entitlement to that relief....” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a). Also, under State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla.2003), it would be a manifest injustice to fail to award proper credit for time served. We remand solely for a determination of the defendant’s claim for additional credit for time served.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to determine claim for additional credit for time served.
*
Under the version of the habitual offender statute in effect at the time of the defendant's sentencing, departure reasons were needed to sentence a defendant as a habitual offender, if the habitual offender sentence was in excess of the sentencing guidelines range. See Isom v. State, 619 So. 2d 369, 375-76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Corria v. State, 932 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…e sentence is within the legal maximum because it does not constitute an illegal sentence. See Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193, 1197 (Fla.1995), receded from in part on other grounds, Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173, 1177 (Fla.2001); Isom v. State, 915 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA2005). Additionally, we note that the defendant’s claim is time-barred pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and even if it were properly before us, we would affirm on the merits. The trial court imposed a sentence to whi…
-
Acosta v. State, 103 So. 3d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…e sentence is within the legal maximum because it does not constitute an illegal sentence. See Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1198, 1197 (Fla.1995), receded from in part on other grounds, Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173, 1177 (Fla.2001); Isom v. State, 915 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). See also § 787.01(2), Fla. Stat. (1995) (“A person who kidnaps a person is guilty of a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life ....”) (emphasis added); § 810.02(2)(a)-(b), Fl…
-
Wilfredo Delgado v. State, 973 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…wering of his sentence, we hold that the validity of the reasons for the trial court’s departure from the guidelines scoresheet sentence cannot be attacked by a 3.800(a) motion. Concepcion v. State, 944 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Isom v. State, 915 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); see also Wood v. State, 867 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Therefore, the trial court was correct in denying the 3.800(a) motion. Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)
- Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995)
- Mack v. State, 823 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 2002)
- Isom v. State, 619 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Isom v. State, 750 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Isom v. State, 800 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)