JUSTIN E. MAYS, 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 summarily denying the defendant's motion for postconviction relief concerning a scoresheet calculation error.
The defendant alleged his scoresheet incorrectly calculated points for a prior burglary offense, claiming the dwelling was unoccupied. This calculatio…
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 Burglary Of A Dwelling cases and more on FLexlaw
Justin Mays appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief which was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Though Mays raised several issues, we reverse and remand for review of one point associated with the calculation of his scoresheet.
Mays’ scoresheet reflects fourteen points for a prior offense of burglary of a dwelling. Within his sworn motion Mays alleges that the dwelling was unoccupied, and therefore it is a. level four offense permitting the scoring of only 2.4 points. See § 921.0023, Fla. Stat. (2006).
This claim was not addressed below or in response to this court’s order. Our review of the record suggests that the calculations are significant because Mays pled to the lowest permissible prison sentence. See generally, Brooks v. State, 969 So.2d 238 (Fla.2007); State v. Anderson, 905 So.2d 111 (Fla.2005); Johnson v. State, 976 So.2d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). We therefore reverse and remand on this issue only. On remand, the court may attach portions of the record to conclusively refute this ground or it may conduct an evidentiary hearing.
We affirm without discussion the trial court’s denial of Mays’ remaining claims.
Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded.
MAY, C.J., TAYLOR and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bradley v. State, 152 So. 3d 667 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…, 9 So. 3d 746, 747-48 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (quoting Nixon v. State, 932 So. 2d 1009, 1018 (Fla.2006)). The trial court’s order and attachments show that it did not address this issue in its otherwise detailed and exhaustive order. See Mays v. State, 89 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (remanding in part the denial of a rule 3.850 motion for further proceedings on an issue that was not addressed in the court’s order); Bowden v. State, 54 So. 3d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (same). Contrary to the State’s position in…
Authorities Cited
- Brooks v. State, 969 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2007)
- State v. Anderson, 905 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2005)
- Johnson v. State, 976 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)