OMAR FERNANDEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Omar Fernandez appealed from orders denying his motions to withdraw his guilty plea and correct an allegedly illegal sentence, claiming the trial court relied on an inaccurately calculated sentencing guidelines scoresheet that inflated his sentence recommendation. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, finding Fernandez made a sufficient showing of improper calculation entitling him to an evidentiary hearing.
The court reversed the orders denying Fernandez's motions and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the scoresheet was incorrectly calculated and, if so, whether Fernandez would not have entered the plea but for the miscalculation. The court found Fernandez made a sufficient showing of improper scoresheet calculation resulting in a 'false bottom' of the guidelines.
[1] A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a motion to withdraw a plea if they make a sufficient showing that the guidelines scoresheet relied upon by the court…
[2] A plea agreement may be subject to withdrawal if the defendant demonstrates that, but for an incorrectly calculated guidelines scoresheet, they would not have entered int…
Previewing 2 of 6 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 trial court, relying on an inaccurately calculated guidelines scoresheet, represented to him that this was a bottom of the guidelines sentence”
Establishes the core claim that the trial court's misrepresentation based on the miscalculated scoresheet was material to Fernandez's plea decision
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFernandez pleaded guilty and accepted a 39.6-month sentence based on the trial court's representation that this was a bottom-of-the-guidelines sentenc…
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 Scoresheet Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Addressing Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing and “Motion to Notify” filed in these consolidated appeals from orders denying his motions to withdraw his plea and to correct an illegal sentence, we grant rehearing, vacate our earlier decision affirming those orders and substitute this opinion in its stead.
The gist of Appellant’s motions below is that he agreed to plead guilty and to a 39.6 month sentence because the trial court, relying on an inaccurately calculated guidelines scoresheet, represented to him that this was a bottom of the guidelines sentence. More specifically, Appellant claims (1) that the scoresheet on which the trial court relied incorrectly scored a prior conviction for simple battery, a misdemeanor, as an aggravated battery, a second degree felony, which should have resulted in a bottom of the guidelines sentence of 36.15 months rather than the 39.6 months represented, and (2) if the guidelines scoresheet had been correctly calculated he would not have accepted the 39.6 month sentence offered. The trial court summarily denied these motions.
While we agree that Appellant has made a sufficient showing that the battery was improperly calculated, resulting in a “false bottom” of the guidelines and entitling him to an evidentiary hearing, we do not necessarily agree (nor do we determine here) that when properly calculated the bottom of the guidelines will be less than the 39.6 months offered and accepted. We note this issue only because an Assistant Public Defender, present at the hearing conducted below on these motions, advised the trial court of “a genuine concern that if a new score sheet were to be filed it would actually be greater than the number — the 39.6 and that was a concern that I had addressed with [Appellant] prior to the plea.” We therefore, reverse the orders entered below denying Appellant’s motions to vacate plea and to correct sentence to *410conduct a hearing to determine whether the scoresheet on which the trial court relied was incorrectly calculated and if so, whether but for the incorrect calculation, Appellant would not have entered into a plea to the incorrectly calculated bottom of the guidelines scoresheet.1
Accordingly, the orders on appeal are reversed and this matter remanded for further proceedings in accordance herewith.