ANDRE CORNELIUS HOLMES, 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.
Andre Holmes appealed the revocation of his probation for third-degree grand theft and his resulting sentence. The court affirmed the revocation and sentence but remanded for correction of a scrivener's error on the sentencing scoresheet where the preparer incorrectly checked "new felony conviction" instead of "probation violation," though the point total was correct.
The court affirmed the probation revocation and sentence because the scoresheet error was a scrivener's error rather than a substantive error that affected the total points or the legality of the sentence. The court remanded for correction of the scrivener's error to avoid confusion in future proceedings.
[1] A scrivener's error on a criminal punishment scoresheet that does not affect the total number of points assessed does not entitle a defendant to resentencing.
[2] A court may remand a case for the correction of a scrivener's error on a scoresheet even when affirming the underlying sentence.
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“Under the "Community Sanction" section of the Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet, a defendant may be assessed six points for each "community sanction violation," which points are assessed for each violation of probation.”
Establishes the legal framework for scoring probation violations on sentencing scoresheets
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHolmes was before the court for his second violation of probation, the first having occurred in June 2010. His sentencing scoresheet included twelve p…
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 Community Sanction Violation Points cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Andre Cornelius Holmes challenges the revocation of his probation for third-degree grand theft and the resulting sentence. We affirm the revocation and the sentence without further comment. However, we remand for correction of a scrivener’s error on Holmes’ scoresheet.
In a motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), Holmes argued that his scoresheet was not properly calculated because it included twelve points for a “new felony conviction.” He points out that he did not have any new felony convictions at the time of sentencing and that the new substantive charges against him were dropped after he was sentenced on the revocation of probation. Therefore, he contends that he is entitled to be resen-tenced using a corrected scoresheet. However, while Holmes is correct that his scoresheet shows twelve points under the “Community Sanction” section for a new felony conviction, the error is a scrivener’s error rather than a substantive error.
Under the “Community Sanction” section of the Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet, a defendant may be assessed six points for each “community sanction violation,” which points are assessed for each violation of probation. See Jones v. State, 901 So.2d 255, 258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Kelly v. State, 706 So.2d 396, 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); see also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.704(d)(16) (providing that com*1192munity sanction points are assessed when a community sanction violation is before the court for sentencing). Here, the record shows that Holmes was before the court for his second violation of probation — the first having come in June 2010. Thus, the State properly scored twelve points under the “Community Sanction” section of Holmes’ scoresheet for these violations of probation. However, the scoresheet preparer incorrectly checked the box in the “Community Sanction” section for a new felony conviction, which also scores twelve points, rather than the box for a probation violation. Thus, while the points total for that section is correct, the incorrect reason for including those points is checked.
Since this scrivener’s error does not affect the total number of points assessed on the scoresheet, Holmes is not entitled to have his sentence reversed on this basis. However, to avoid questions in future proceedings, we remand for the scrivener’s error on the scoresheet to be corrected. Holmes need not be present when this correction is made.
Affirmed, but remanded with instructions.
LaROSE and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Liana Montanez v. State, 160 So. 3d 540 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…al court did not correct the scoresheet. _ As the State concedes, the scrivener’s error in the scoresheet should have been corrected. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court shall correct the scrivener’s error in the scoresheet. See Holmes v. State, 109 So. 3d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Jones v. State, 96 So. 3d 1122, 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). Affirmed, but remanded with instructions. SILBERMAN, KELLY, and WALLACE, JJ„ Concur.…
-
Dandre Curtez Russell v. State, 261 So. 3d 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…SALARIO, JJ., Concur. 1We note that even where a scoresheet error is innocuous, like in this case, the trial court should ensure that any mistakes of which it is aware are corrected before entering a judgment. See Holmes v. State, 109 So. 3d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("[T]o avoid questions in future proceedings, we remand for the scrivener's error on the scoresheet to be corrected."). A trial court should not decline, as the trial court did in this case, to rectify minor sentencing error…
-
Moret v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…k next to the box indicating that the sentence involved a "Plea Bargain." Accordingly, we remand for correction of this scrivener's error on Mr. Moret's scoresheet. Mr. Moret "need not be present when this correction is made." See Holmes v. State, 109 So. 3d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). Affirmed and remanded for correction of scrivener's error. LaROSE, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and STARGEL, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Jones v. State, 901 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Kelly v. State, 706 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)