CLIFFORD E. GARRETT, 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.
Appellant's sentence was vacated and remanded because the state failed to present sufficient evidence that prior convictions scored in the sentencing guidelines were not barred by the ten-year rule under Florida law.
Prior convictions may not be scored in the sentencing guidelines if the defendant had a conviction-free record for ten consecutive years from release to the date of the primary offense, and the burden is on the state to prove otherwise.
[1] The state bears the burden of producing competent evidence to support the scoring of prior convictions in the sentencing guidelines, and prior convictions occurring more…
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 intelligence“the burden is on the state to produce competent evidence to support the scoring of disputed convictions”
Court citing Lyons v. State regarding evidentiary burden in sentencing guidelines disputes
Appellant was sentenced and challenged the scoring of prior convictions in his sentencing guidelines, claiming they occurred more than ten years befor…
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 Prior Convictions Scoring cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, appellant seeks review of an order denying his motion to correct a sentencing error, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). Appellant claims that points were improperly scored for prior convictions committed more than 10 years before the date of the primary offense for which he was being sentenced because he had not been convicted of any other offense for 10 consecutive years from his most recent date of release from confinement, supervision or other sanction to the date of the primary offense. The state correctly concedes that insufficient evidence was presented to establish that appellant did not have a conviction-free record for 10 consecutive years from his most recent date of release to the date of the primary offense for which he was being sentenced and that, because the plea agreement called for the lowest permissible sentence allowed by the scoresheet, a remand for a new sentencing hearing is required. We agree. See, e.g., Lyons v. State, 823 So. 2d 250, 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (the burden is on the state to produce competent evidence to support the scoring of disputed convictions). Accordingly, we vacate appellant’s sentence, and remand with directions that the trial court conduct a new sentencing hearing.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
ALLEN, WEBSTER, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.