TERRY D. ELLISON, JR.
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 1st DCA | 2019-04-29
No. 18-1629
268 So. 3d 1007 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2019) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.

Synopsis

Terry Ellison, Jr. petitioned for relief based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel who failed to challenge a sentencing error involving an improperly applied "adult-on-minor sex offense" multiplier on his criminal scoresheet. The court found the scoresheet error was not harmless and vacated Ellison's sentence for resentencing with a corrected scoresheet.


Holding

Appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to move to correct the sentencing scoresheet, as the adult-on-minor sex offense multiplier did not apply to Ellison's offense as a matter of law. The scoresheet error was not harmless because the trial court did not indicate it would have imposed the same sentence using a correct scoresheet, necessitating resentencing.


Headnotes

[1] A sentencing scoresheet multiplier that does not apply to the defendant's particular offense as a matter of law is a clear error requiring correction, and such error is n…

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 intelligence

Key Quotes

“The "adult-on-minor sex offense" multiplier in section 921.0024(1)(b), Florida Statutes, applies only to certain offenses listed in the statute. Petitioner's offense, unlawful sexual activity under section 794.05, Florida Statutes, is not a listed offense.”

Court's analysis of why the multiplier was improperly applied

Facts & Procedural History

Ellison was sentenced to 153 months in prison based on a scoresheet that included an "adult-on-minor sex offense" multiplier under Florida Statutes se…

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.


Opinion of the Court

April 29, 2019 PER CURIAM.

In the instant petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, Terry Ellison, Jr. claims his appellate counsel failed to file a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to preserve a sentencing error—that his scoresheet improperly included an “adult-on-minor sex offense” multiplier. He argues that the inclusion of this multiplier effectively doubled the sentencing points. We determine that this claim may be raised in the instant petition, see, e.g., Marshall v. State, 241 So. 3d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018), and grant the petition.

Petitioner correctly contends that his scoresheet was incorrect. The “adult-on-minor sex offense” multiplier in section 921.0024(1)(b), Florida Statutes, applies only to certain offenses listed in the statute. Petitioner’s offense, unlawful sexual activity under section 794.05, Florida Statutes, is not a listed offense. Therefore, the multiplier did not apply to Petitioner as a matter of law, and appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to move to correct the sentence.

This scoresheet error was not harmless. The record does not show that the trial court “would-have-imposed” the same sentence using a correct scoresheet. See Sanders v. State, 35 So. 3d 864, 870-71 (Fla. 2010); Ray v. State, 987 So. 2d 155, 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Petitioner was sentenced to 153 months in prison, which was the lowest permissible sentence under the incorrect scoresheet. Although this sentence falls within the permissible range under a corrected scoresheet, the trial court made no statement that it would have otherwise imposed the same sentence absent the scoresheet error. Accordingly, we vacate Petitioner’s sentence and remand for a new sentencing proceeding using a corrected scoresheet. See Anderson v. State, 988 So. 2d 144, 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“[W]here a second appeal would be redundant or unnecessary, it is appropriate to simply grant petitioner the relief to which he would have been entitled had the issue been raised in the original appeal.”).

PETITION GRANTED. WETHERELL, BILBREY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.

_____________________________ Robert David Malove of the Law Office of Robert David Malove, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Petitioner. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw