JOSE LUIS BARAJAS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Corrected Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jose Luis Barajas appeals the denial of his rule 3.850 motion. At a hearing on some of his claims, the state agreed with Barajas that his conviction for count V should be vacated based on a double jeopardy violation. The trial court accepted the concession and recognized that this would require a new sentencing hearing with a corrected scoresheet. The written order vacated the conviction and sentence on count V, but Barajas was not re-sentenced on the remaining charges. On appeal, the state agrees that re-sentencing is required. See State v. Anderson, 905 So. 2d 111 (Fla.2005) (holding that the proper test for determining whether re-sentencing is required as a result of a scoresheet error raised in a 3.850 motion is whether the record conclusively shows the same sentence would have been imposed with a correct scoresheet); Leyva v. State, 929 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court’s order and remand for the court to re-sentence Barajas on the remaining charges with a corrected scoresheet.
We affirm the denial of Barajas’ remaining claims.
STONE, FARMER and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mancine v. State, 95 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…ion to correct illegal sentence, in which he challenges the Department of Corrections’ application of his court-ordered jail credit. Defendant should first exhaust his administrative remedies through the Department of Corrections. See Ward v. State, 974 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). If he is not satisfied with the Department’s ruling, he can then file a petition for writ of mandamus with the appropriate court. See Robinson v. State, 818 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Affirmed. STEVENSON, DAMOORGIAN a…
-
Jawid Lahrizi v. State, 997 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…nvictions and sentences as to counts one and two undisturbed. This Court affirmed. Lahrizi v. State, 945 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). The defendant filed another rule 3.800 motion on March 26, 2008, alleging that on the basis of Barajas v. State, 974 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), when the trial court vacated the conviction in count three, he was entitled to a new sentencing hearing. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion, and we affirm the denial of this rule 3.800 motion. Barajas does not hold t…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Anderson, 905 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2005)
- Fidel Leyva v. State, 929 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)