ANTHONY PERRY
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.
When a sentencing scoresheet incorrectly lists offenses as "additional offenses" rather than "prior record," and the record does not conclusively show the trial court would have imposed the same sentence using a corrected scoresheet, the case must be reversed and remanded for resentencing.
[1] Sentencing scoresheet errors that result from miscategorizing prior offenses as "additional offenses" rather than "prior record" require remand for resentencing when the…
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 intelligenceAppellant Perry was convicted of robbery with a weapon and sentenced to 62.78 months in prison (a bottom-of-guidelines sentence). The trial court's sc…
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 Prior Record Scoring cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Appellant appeals his conviction and sentence for robbery with a weapon. The trial court imposed a bottom of the guidelines sentence of 62.78 months in prison. Appellant argues that his scoresheet incorrectly listed four offenses as “additional offenses” and that they should be removed. The state concedes error in listing the offenses as “additional offenses,” but points out that the offenses should be scored as “prior record” instead, having introduced certified copies into the record. Because the record does not conclusively show that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence using a corrected scoresheet, we reverse and remand for the trial court to resolve this matter at resentencing. See Zelaya v. State, 257 So. 3d 493, 497 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). We affirm the remaining issues raised by appellant without comment. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. LEVINE, C.J., GROSS and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.