LEROY LYNN, 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.
Leroy Lynn appeals his sentencing, alleging a scoring error in his sentencing guidelines. The court affirmed the sentence but remanded for the trial court to enter a written order correcting the score sheet, as required by procedural rule, even though the error did not affect the sentence imposed.
The court affirmed the sentence because the score sheet error did not result in a sentence that could not have been imposed based on a correctly-calculated score sheet. However, the case was remanded to require the trial court to enter a written order conforming to its oral pronouncement, as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(1)(B).
[1] A sentencing score sheet error that does not result in a sentence that could not have been imposed based on a correctly calculated score sheet does not require reversal o…
[2] A motion to correct a sentence is considered denied if the trial court fails to file an order ruling on the motion within sixty days of its filing.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 score sheet error did not result in a sentence that could not have been imposed based on a correctly-calculated score sheet”
This establishes the harmless error standard applied—the sentence was legal even with the incorrect calculation, justifying affirmance of the judgment and sentence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLynn was charged with two counts of forgery, two counts of uttering false statements, and one count of grand theft. He pleaded guilty to the forgery a…
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 Sentencing Guidelines Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Leroy Lynn, appeals from the final judgment and sentence of the trial court. Appellant alleges, and the State concedes, that there was a scoring error in his sentencing guidelines score sheet. The parties acknowledge in their statements of fact that the score sheet error did not result in a sentence that could not have been imposed based on a correctly-calculated score sheet. We agree, and accordingly, affirm the trial court’s judgment and sentence but remand for the trial court to enter a written order in conformity with its oral pronouncement from the bench.
Appellant was charged with two counts of forgery, two counts of uttering false statements, and one count of grand theft. Appellant entered a guilty plea to forgery and uttering false statements with the agreement that the grand theft charge would be nolle prossed. Appellant’s judgment and sentence reflects the exclusion of the grand theft charge.
However, Appellant’s criminal score sheet included points for the grand theft charge. Following Appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 motion to correct his sentence, the State conceded, and the trial court acknowledged, that the score sheet was miscalculated.
On July 10, 2007, the trial court orally granted Appellant’s motion to the extent of ordering his score sheet to be corrected but did not reduce the sentence imposed.
The trial court failed to enter a written order within sixty days.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(1)(B) provides, in pertinent part, ‘Within 60 days from the filing of the motion, the trial court shall file an order ruling on the motion. If no order is filed within 60 days, the motion shall be considered denied.” Because the trial court failed to enter a written order within sixty days of Appellant’s filing of his motion to correct his sentence, the motion is deemed denied.
However, the record facially supports Appellant’s argument that his score sheet was incorrectly calculated, but the score sheet error did not result in a sentence that could not have been imposed based on a correctly-calculated score sheet.
Therefore, the trial court’s judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED, but this case is REMANDED to the trial court with instructions to enter a written order in conformity with its oral pronouncement from the bench on Appellant’s motion to correct sentence. Appellant need not be present for the entry of the written order. PADOVANO, LEWIS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.