JIMMIE HARRELL, JR., 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 court reversed the trial court's denial of a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion to the extent it dismissed a scoresheet error claim, finding that scoresheet errors are cognizable under the rule. The court affirmed the denial of appellant's remaining claims and remanded for recalculation of the sentencing scoresheet.
The court held that scoresheet error claims are cognizable under Rule 3.850, contrary to the trial court's dismissal on the ground that trial court error is not cognizable. The error was not harmless because the corrected maximum sentence would be less than the appellant's actual sentence.
[1] Claims of scoresheet error are cognizable in a postconviction motion.
[2] A scoresheet error is not harmless when the corrected maximum sentence is less than the actual sentence imposed.
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“The trial court improperly dismissed the appellant's allegation on the ground that trial court error is not cognizable in a postconviction motion. But claims of scoresheet error are cognizable under rule 3.850.”
Establishes that scoresheet error claims are cognizable under Rule 3.850 and cannot be dismissed on the basis that trial court error generally is not cognizable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. During an evidentiary hearing on the Rule 3.850 motion, the state presented a certified judg…
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 Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the order by which the trial court denied, following an evidentiary hearing, his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. Because the trial court improperly dismissed the appellant’s claim alleging scoresheet error, we reverse the denial of that claim. But we affirm the denial of the remaining claims.
The trial court improperly dismissed the appellant’s allegation on the ground that trial court error is not cognizable in a postconviction motion. But claims of scoresheet error are cognizable under rule 3.850. See Atwood v. State, 765 So. 2d 242, 242-43 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
The appellant’s motion alleges that his current sentence of seven years’ imprisonment could not be imposed under a properly calculated scoresheet. During the evidentiary hearing, the state presented a certified copy of the appellant’s judgment in Case Number 90-4820 which revealed that the conviction was for a third-degree felony, not a second-degree felony as referenced and scored. Correction of this scoring error would reduce the appellant’s score by 11.6 points.
The error cannot be considered harmless because the appellant’s new maximum sentence is less than the appellant’s actual sentence. See Hummel v. State, 782 So. 2d 450, 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
The dismissal of the appellant’s claim alleging scoresheet error is accordingly reversed, and this case is remanded to the trial court for proper calculation of the appellant’s scoresheet and imposition of a sentence within the guidelines.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
WOLF, C.J., ALLEN and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hummel v. State, 782 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Forrest Atwood v. State, 765 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- IVY v. Moore, 782 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)