EARNEST NETTLES, 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 a defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to scoresheet errors is facially sufficient and not refuted by the record, requiring further proceedings.
Nettles, convicted of drug trafficking and conspiracy, alleged his attorney was ineffective for failing to confirm prior convictions on his Criminal 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 Criminal Punishment Code Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
Earnest Nettles appeals the summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion. We reverse the denial of claim 4.
Nettles was convicted of trafficking in oxycodone and conspiracy to traffic in oxy-codone and sentenced to ten years in prison on each count. In claim 4 of his rule 3.850 motion, he alleged his attorney provided ineffective assistance in failing to confirm the prior convictions on the Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet and failing to offer or have the state counteroffer a plea. Nettles denied that he was ever convicted of some offenses listed on his scoresheet, including credit card fraud, grand theft auto, burglary, and robbery. He alleged there were 9.2 more points on his scoresheet than there should have been. Removing these points would reduce the lowest permissible sentence from 65.4 months to 58.5 months.
The state argued below and on appeal that the claim is speculative and facially insufficient because he did not show deficient performance or prejudice.
We affirm the denial of this claim as to counsel’s failure to offer or have the state counteroffer a plea. However, Nettles’ claim of a scoresheet error is facially sufficient and is not refuted by the record.
The record does not conclusively show that Nettles in fact has these prior convictions or that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence with a corrected scoresheet. State v. Anderson, 905 So.2d 111 (Fla.2005); Pembrook v. State, 2 So.3d 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). An evi-dentiary hearing may be needed to determine Nettles’ prior convictions. Rodriguez v. State, 1 So.3d 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings on this claim. The summary denial of the remaining claims is affirmed.
WARNER, GROSS and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Anderson, 905 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2005)
- Rodriguez v. State, 1 So. 3d 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Pembrook v. State, 2 So. 3d 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)