JEFFREY RAY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2011-08-23
No. 1D09-4965
CLARK and SWANSON, JJ„ concur.
68 So. 3d 346 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2011) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases

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.

Synopsis

Jeffrey Ray appeals his convictions for felony murder and aggravated child abuse. The appellate court affirmed his convictions but found sentencing error in the aggravated child abuse charge, where victim injury points stemming from the capital felony murder were improperly included on the non-capital offense scoresheet. The case is remanded for resentencing on the aggravated child abuse charge.


Holding

No. Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.703(d)(9), victim injury points from a capital felony may not be included on a scoresheet prepared for non-capital felonies pending before the court for sentencing. The trial court erred in adding the 120 points for the victim's death to the aggravated child abuse scoresheet.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court's failure to rule on a motion to correct a sentencing error within 60 days results in the motion being considered denied.

[2] Motions to correct sentencing errors, involving purely legal issues, are reviewed de novo.

Previewing 2 of 4 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

Key Quotes

“Victim injury resultant from one or more capital felonies before the court for sentencing is not to be included upon any scoresheet prepared for non-capital felonies also pending before the court for sentencing.”

The critical rule violated by the trial court, establishing the legal standard for segregating victim injury points between capital and non-capital offenses.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Jeffrey Ray was convicted of felony murder and aggravated child abuse. At sentencing, the trial court imposed a life sentence for felony murder and 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.


Opinion of the Court
HAWKES, J.

HAWKES, J.

Appellant Jeffrey Ray appeals his convictions for felony murder and aggravated child abuse, raising five arguments. We find each of his arguments unpersuasive, except for his claim that he was improperly sentenced on the charge of aggravated child abuse. We write only to address this point.

*347Following trial, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment for the charge of felony murder, a term to run concurrent to a fifteen year sentence for aggravated child abuse. Appellant challenged the sentence for aggravated child abuse in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.800(b)(2) (2009). In the motion, he emphasized that the Department of Corrections had added 120 points for “victim injury” to the sentencing scoresheet for the charge of aggravated child abuse. These points were added because of the victim’s “death.” Appellant argued that sentencing points for a capital offense should not be added to the scoresheet for a non-capital offense, and that he should be resentenced under a properly tabulated scoresheet.

The trial court effectively denied Appellant’s motion as it failed to rule on it within 60 days. See Fla. R. Crim. Procedure 8.800(b)(2)(B) (2009) (stating all motions to correct sentencing error pending appeal are governed by subdivision (b)(1)(B); see also Fla. R. Crim. Procedure 3.800(b)(1)(B) (2009) (stating “[i]f no order is filed within 60 days, the motion shall be considered denied”). Appellant filed a motion for rehearing, although the trial court did not rule on this motion either. The trial court’s effective denial of these motions was error.

Motions to correct sentencing errors involve “purely legal issues,” and are therefore reviewed de novo. See Willard v. State, 22 So.3d 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Flowers v. State, 899 So.2d 1257, 1259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Appellant’s motion questioned whether “victim injury” points had been erroneously added to his scoresheet. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.703(d)(9) states “victim injury” points may be scored for

physical injury or death suffered by a person as a direct result of any offense pending before the court for sentencing. [ ] Victim injury shall be scored for each victim physically injured and for each offense resulting in physical injury whether there are one or more victims.

The Rule then makes the following statement, which is of critical importance to this issue:

Victim injury resultant from one or more capital felonies before the court for sentencing is not to be included upon any scoresheet prepared for non-capital felonies also pending before the court for sentencing.

(emphasis added); see also Seccia v. State, 786 So.2d 12, 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

Here, although the 120 points for the victim’s death related to the charge of felony murder — a capital felony — they were included on the scoresheet for the charge of aggravated child abuse — a non-capital felony. Under Rule 3.703(d)(9), this was error and those points should not have been added. Because the record does not conclusively show that the trial court would have rendered the same sentence had the error not occurred, Appellant must be resentenced on this charge.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM Appellant’s convictions, but VACATE the sentence for aggravated child abuse and REMAND for resentencing on this charge.

CLARK and SWANSON, JJ„ concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Deshawn Hurst v. State, 257 So. 3d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
  • Cruz v. State, 198 So. 3d 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
    …Mr. Cruz now appeals, arguing that , his sentences on five counts were illegal. We review the legality of a sentence as a pure issue of law that is subject to de novo review. Wardlaw v. State, 832 So. 2d 258, 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Bay v. State, 68 So. 3d 346, 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Flowers v. State, 899 So. 2d 1257, 1259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). On the record before us, it is apparent that reversal is merited on five counts. In case 13-CF-17933, the sentences of six years in prison as a youthful offender…
  • Whipple v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw