CAL GRAHAM, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2006-03-01
No. 4D04-4406
STEVENSON, C.J., GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
920 So. 2d 1262 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2006) Caution
Cited by 6 cases

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.

Synopsis

Cal Graham appealed the denial of his motion to correct sentencing errors in his cocaine possession conviction. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for resentencing, finding that Graham's Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet was incorrectly calculated by including points for an acquitted offense and juvenile convictions outside the statutory five-year window.


Holding

The scoresheet was incorrectly calculated, and the errors were not harmless. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing because the record does not conclusively show that the sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence had it been presented with the correct scoresheet calculation.


Headnotes

[1] A criminal defendant is entitled to resentencing when their Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet is incorrectly calculated and the record does not conclusively show that t…

[2] Points should not be assessed on a Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet for offenses for which the defendant was acquitted.

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

Key Quotes

“juvenile dispositions of offenses committed by the offender within 5 years before the primary offense are included in the offender's prior record when the offense would have been a crime had the offender been an adult rather than a juvenile”

Establishes the statutory five-year limitation for including juvenile convictions in prior record calculations

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Graham was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell and sentenced to 59.925 months in prison (the lowest permissible sentence under the …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Cal Graham, appeals the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error. We reverse and remand for resentencing because Graham’s Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet is incorrect and the record is not clear that the sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence had it been presented with the correct scoresheet calculation.

Following his conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to sell, Graham was sentenced to 59.925 months in prison, the lowest permissible prison sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code, followed by three years of drug offender probation. Graham filed a Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error, arguing that the trial court incorrectly included points for a count for which he was acquitted and points for prior juvenile convictions which were more than five years old at the time of the primary offense. The trial court denied Graham’s motion and this appeal ensued.

We agree that Graham’s scoresheet was incorrectly calculated. The court granted Graham’s motion for judgment of acquittal for a separate count, giving a false name to a law enforcement officer; however, points were assessed for this offense on his score-sheet.

Furthermore, points for Graham’s prior juvenile convictions were incorrectly included as prior record.

Section 921.0021(5), Florida Statutes, (2004) provides, in relevant part, that “juvenile dispositions of offenses committed by the offender within 5 years before the primary offense are included in the offender’s prior record when the offense would have been a crime had the offender been an adult rather than a juvenile.” § 921.0021(5), Fla. Stat. Because the “primary offense,” possession of cocaine with intent to sell, had an incident date of April 7, 2004, any juvenile dispositions occurring prior to April 7, 1999 should not have been included in the scoresheet as prior record.

Thus, the trial court erred in assessing points in Graham’s scoresheet for offenses which occurred more than five years prior to the primary offense date.

Furthermore, we cannot conclude that the scoresheet errors in this case were harmless. In State v. Anderson, 905 So. 2d 111 (Fla.2005), the Court approved the “would-have-been-imposed” harmless error test with regard to scoresheet errors. Under this test, a scoresheet error requires resentencing unless the record “conclusively shows that the same sentence would have been imposed using a correct score-sheet.” Anderson, 905 So. 2d at 112. Moreover, in Cruz v. State, 884 So. 2d 105, 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), following Anderson, we reversed for a resentencing hearing where it could not be conclusively said that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence with the corrected scoresheet.

In this case, the record does not conclusively show that the same sentence would have been imposed if the scoresheet had been correctly calculated.

The trial court imposed the lowest permissible prison sentence of 59.925 months, although the maximum sentence for possession of cocaine with intent to sell, a second degree felony, is fifteen years.

We find support for our decision in Frazier v. State, 912 So. 2d 54, 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), where we reversed the defendant’s sentence when the original scoresheet indicated that the minimum sentence was 83 months (6.9 years) and the correct scoresheet indicated that the minimum sentence was 74.5 months (6.2 years).

Even though the trial court imposed a sentence of twelve years, we found that the difference of eight months in the recommended minimum sentence might have caused the sentencing judge to impose a lower sentence since he was not inclined to sentence the defendant to the statutory maximum. Id. at 56.

Similarly, the trial court in this case imposed the lowest permissible prison sentence calculated under the Criminal Punishment Code and was not inclined to sentence Graham to the statutory maximum, and as a result, we cannot conclude that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence using a corrected scoresheet.

We therefore reverse Graham’s sentence and remand for resentencing according to a corrected scoresheet.

Reversed.

STEVENSON, C.J., GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Tonny President v. State, 82 So. 3d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
    …e in prison immediately after the verdict finding appellant guilty of robbery with a firearm. He concluded that this demonstrated that the judge would have imposed the same sentence even with a correct scoresheet, citing by contrast Graham v. State, 920 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). In Graham, following the defendant’s conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to sell, the trial court sentenced the defendant to 59.925 months in prison, the lowest permissible prison sentence, although the maximum sen…
  • Adlington v. State, 931 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
    …since appellant’s motion also invokes rule 3.850, we reject appellant’s claim of scoresheet error because it conclusively can be said that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence with the corrected score-sheet. See also Graham v. State, 920 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Here, appellant contended that if the scoresheet had been corrected, the lowest permissible sentence would have been any non-state prison sanction. Even if true, his own allegations would have the court find that he agreed to at…
  • Cosme v. State, 111 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
    …ounced the sentences without the scoresheet, and because the record does not conclusively show that the same sentences would have been imposed using a correct scoresheet, we are compelled to reverse and remand for re-sentencing. See Graham v. State, 920 So. 2d 1262, 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“[A] scoresheet error requires resentencing unless the record conclusively shows that the same sentence would have been imposed using a correct scoresheet.”) (citation and quotation omitted). Reversed and remanded for res…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw