RANDY G. NAUGLE, 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 Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed defendant Naugle's convictions and sentences following a guilty plea, but remanded for correction of a scoresheet error where two misdemeanor charges were erroneously classified as additional offenses rather than prior offenses. Although the court found the error harmless because the sentence would remain unchanged, it held that the proper remedy was to grant the motion and correct the scoresheet.
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding the scoresheet error was harmless because the sentence would have been the same. However, the proper action should have been to grant the defendant's motion for the sole purpose of correcting the scoresheet, even though the ultimate sentence would remain unchanged.
[1] A scoresheet error is harmless if the record conclusively shows that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence using a corrected scoresheet.
[2] A defendant's motion to correct a sentencing error on a scoresheet should be granted for the sole purpose of correcting the scoresheet, even if the sentence would remain…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“any error is harmless if the record conclusively shows that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence using a corrected scoresheet”
Establishes the harmless error standard for scoresheet errors under Brooks v. State
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Naugle pleaded guilty and was convicted of charges. On his sentencing scoresheet, two misdemeanor charges were erroneously scored as additio…
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 Correction Of Sentencing Error cases and more on FLexlaw
*1128We affirm the defendant's convictions and sentences following a plea. However, we remand for the circuit court to correct a scoresheet error.
As pointed out in the defendant's amended motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), two misdemeanor charges were erroneously scored as additional offenses instead of as prior offenses on the defendant's scoresheet. The circuit court denied the defendant's motion, adopting the state's reasoning that any error was harmless because the total points would not change as the result of any correction. We agree that the error was harmless because the sentence would have been the same. See Brooks v. State , 969 So.2d 238, 241 (Fla. 2007) (when scoresheet errors are presented via (1) direct appeal, (2) Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), or (3) Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, then "any error is harmless if the record conclusively shows that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence using a corrected scoresheet").
However, the proper action should have been to grant the defendant's motion for the sole purpose of correcting the scoresheet. See Henion v. State , --- So. 3d ----, 2018 WL 2230718 (Fla. 4th DCA May 16, 2018) (affirming the defendant's sentence, but remanding for entry of a properly calculated scoresheet, even though the sentence would have been the same); but see McCool v. State , 211 So.3d 304, 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (where the defendant's scoresheet erroneously included a sixth "prior record" misdemeanor, sentence was reversed and remanded for resentencing based upon a correctly calculated scoresheet; rejecting the state's argument that the error was harmless because the points assessed for the sixth misdemeanor offense were the same as those that should have been assessed for misdemeanor battery as an "additional offense" on the scoresheet).
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the defendant's convictions and sentences, but remand for the circuit court to correct the scoresheet error. The defendant need not be present for the ministerial act of correcting the scoresheet on remand. Henion , --- So. 3d at ----.
Affirmed; remanded for correction of scoresheet only.
Warner and Forst, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Powers v. State, 260 So. 3d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…e that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence had a correct scoresheet been presented, we reverse Appellant’s sentence and remand for a de novo resentencing. See State v. Anderson, 905 So. 2d 111, 118 (Fla. 2005); Naugle v. State, 244 So. 3d 1127, 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (explaining that when scoresheet errors are presented via (1) direct appeal, (2) Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), or (3) Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, then “any error is harmless if the record con…
-
Platt v. State, 268 So. 3d 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
-
Walker v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…of competency, we remand the case to the trial court for entry of a nunc pro tunc order finding appellant competent to stand trial.”). The defendant need not be present for these three ministerial acts. James, 258 So. 3d at 469; Naugle v. State, 244 So. 3d 1127, 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); Zern v. State, 215 So. 3d 185, 186-87 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). Affirmed; remanded with instructions. DAMOORGIAN and CIKLIN, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brooks v. State, 969 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2007)
- McCool v. State, 211 So. 3d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)