EMORY MASSALENE, 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.
Conviction for cocaine trafficking affirmed, but sentence reversed because the trial court erred in refusing to verify a prior conviction claim at sentencing and instead directing the defendant to pursue post-conviction relief.
A trial court must verify a defendant's challenge to a prior conviction used in sentencing guidelines calculations rather than deferring the matter to post-conviction proceedings.
[1] A trial court must verify a defendant's challenge to a prior conviction used in sentencing guidelines calculations at the sentencing hearing rather than directing the def…
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 intelligenceMassalene was convicted of cocaine trafficking. At sentencing, his counsel challenged a July 1978 grand larceny conviction listed on the presentence i…
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 Sentencing Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
NIMMONS, Judge.
Appellant appeals from his conviction and sentence for trafficking in cocaine. We affirm the conviction but reverse the sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing.
At the sentencing hearing, counsel for the defendant challenged a July 1978 grand larceny conviction which appeared on the presentence investigation report and was scored as a prior conviction on the sentencing guidelines, scoresheet. The scoring of such offense placed the defendant in a higher sentence range (cell) in the score-sheet. Counsel informed the court that the defendant claimed that he had never been convicted of such offense and requested a fingerprint check. No effort was made to corroborate such offense. In fact, the trial judge’s response was that the appropriate relief to vindicate such a claim would be a Rule 3.850 post conviction motion. This was error. Stacey v. State, 483 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Davis v. State, 463 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Olivera v. State, 494 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Camp v. State, 501 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
We have reviewed the remaining claims urged by the defendant and find them to be without merit.
Judgment affirmed, sentence reversed, and cause remanded for resentencing.
SMITH, C.J., and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 549 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…corroborate the prior convictions once the defendant had objected to the number of convictions shown on the score-sheet, see Smith v. State, 528 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Lovett v. State, 536 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Massalene v. State, 524 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), we are compelled to dismiss this appeal because the defendant has served both of his sentences and has been released. Any error in the scoring of his prior convictions on the scoresheet has been rendered moot. Dismissed. RYD…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 463 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Camp v. State, 501 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Ramos v. Stabinski & Funt, P.A., 494 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Olivera v. State, 494 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Alphonso Canty v. State, 483 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Stacey v. State, 483 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)