LEO THEODORE BELL, 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 the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant to thirty-six months when the correct scoresheet indicated a maximum of twenty-two months.
Appellant was sentenced to thirty-six months incarceration. He contended that the wrong scoresheet was used, and under the correct guidelines, the max…
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 Departure From Recommended Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, J.
Appellant, Leo Theodore Bell, raises two sentencing issues on appeal. Both were preserved by the filing of a motion to correct sentencing error in the trial court pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), but the trial court allowed the time to expire without addressing the claimed errors. We find that the first issue subsequently was decided adversely to appellant in Harper v. State, 955 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). The second issue, however, appears to have merit.
Bell contends that the wrong scoresheet was utilized at his sentencing. Bell contends that, under the guidelines in effect at the time of his offense and pursuant to Rule 3.703(d)(27), Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure, his score of 26.2 allowed the court to impose a sentence of not more than twenty-two months in prison without identifying a basis to depart from the recommended sentence. The State has not rebutted Bell’s claim.
From what we are able to determine from the available record, sinee Bell’s felony was committed before July 1, 1997, and his points are less than forty, twenty-two months was the maximum and the trial court appears to have erred in sentencing Bell to thirty-six months’ incarceration. Because of the sparseness of the record, however, given Bell’s failure to raise this issue at sentencing, the State’s apparent failure to respond to the Rule 3.800(b) motion and the trial court’s failure to rule on the motion, we reverse but remand for a hearing to determine the correct sentence.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
THOMPSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.