JOSHUA LUCAS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court's denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence is proper where the sentencing scoresheet properly accounts for multiple pending cases and the scoring of prior convictions is legally sound, though a scrivener's error in the disposition order must be corrected.
[1] A trial court may properly use a single sentencing scoresheet to account for multiple pending cases where legally appropriate, and the court's scoring of prior conviction…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoshua Lucas was convicted and sentenced in six related cases. Lucas filed a motion challenging his sentence, alleging that the oral pronouncement con…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Joshua Lucas appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Lucas claims that 1) the oral pronouncement of his sentence conflicts with the charging document; 2) the trial court erred in preparing only one scoresheet for six pending cases; and 3) the trial court erred by scoring prior convictions under the additional offense heading. We affirm on issues 2 and 3 without further comment. As to the first issue, the State concedes that the disposition order should be corrected to reflect that appellant was charged with burglary of an unoccupied dwelling under section 810.02(3)(b), Florida Statutes.
We affirm the order denying appellant’s motion to correct illegal sentence but remand with directions that the scrivener’s error be corrected in the disposition order. Appellant’s presence is not required for this correction. See Sweeney v. State, 138 So. 3d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
Affirmed; remanded to correct scrivener’s error in appellant’s sentencing.
2
GERBER, C.J., DAMOORGIAN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hunt v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
-
Thomas v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Sweeney v. State, 138 So. 3d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)