DEXTER ANDERSON, 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 affirmed dismissal of a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion because it was untimely, and even if timely, any sentencing error from an erroneous prior conviction on the scoresheet was harmless.
A Rule 3.850 postconviction motion challenging a sentencing scoresheet that included a non-existent prior conviction is untimely and, alternatively, any resulting sentencing error is harmless.
[1] A sentencing error based on inclusion of a non-existent prior conviction in a scoresheet does not implicate the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction and therefore ca…
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 intelligenceAppellant Anderson's sentencing scoresheet contained a non-existent prior conviction that added 1.6 points to the total, though the sentence imposed f…
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 Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the dismissal of appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief because the motion was not timely under rule 3.850(b). In his motion, appellant contends that the trial court “exceeded its jurisdiction” in passing sentence because his scoresheet erroneously contained a non-existent prior conviction. Although there is case law suggesting that an absence of jurisdiction may be raised at any time, see, e.g., Harris v. State, 854 So. 2d 703, 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), we do not interpret appellant’s claim as a challenge to the sentencing court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
The trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction would be unaffected by the sentencing error alleged by appellant. See Rodriguez v. State, 441 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (en banc rehearing).
Accordingly, appellant’s motion was not timely under rule 3.850(b). Even assuming that appellant is correct that his scoresheet included a non-existent prior conviction, appellant is not entitled to relief. Appellant has previously raised this issue in a rule 3.800(a) motion, and we now write to make clear that we previously denied relief because the sentencing error was harmless under the “could-have-been-imposed” test. See Brooks v. State, 930 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). The inclusion of this conviction resulted in the addition of only 1.6 points to appellant’s scoresheet total, and the sentence actually imposed by the trial court far exceeded the minimum sanction under the Criminal Punishment Code.
Affirmed.
WARNER, KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gregorio Rodriguez v. State, 441 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Brooks v. State, 930 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Harris v. State, 854 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)