FELTON LEROY HINGSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1989-12-15
No. 89-1427
SHIVERS, C.J., and NIMMONS, J., concur.
553 So. 2d 768 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1989)

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

Appellant Hingson challenged his guilty plea to sexual battery charges, arguing that his prior offenses were improperly scored under the sentencing guidelines scoresheet, resulting in an inflated recommended prison range that may have influenced his decision to plead guilty. The appellate court reversed the trial court's summary denial of post-conviction relief and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the scoresheet was miscalculated and whether the error affected the voluntariness of his plea.


Holding

The court reversed the summary denial in Case No. 86-205 because it could not determine from the record whether Hingson was entitled to no relief. The court affirmed the denial in Case No. 86-207. The court held that an evidentiary hearing must be conducted to determine whether the scoresheet was improperly scored and whether any error influenced Hingson's decision to plead guilty.


Headnotes

[1] A plea may be considered involuntary if it was based upon a misapprehension of facts, such as an incorrect sentencing guidelines score.

[2] A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine if a sentencing scoresheet was improperly scored and if the defendant was influenced by the error in enteri…

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

Key Quotes

“If appellant based his plea, agreeing to the state attorney's recommendation of 20 years' imprisonment, upon a belief that his guidelines score resulted in a recommended range of 17 to 22 years instead of 12 to 17 years, then his plea may be considered involuntary.”

Establishes the legal standard that a plea based on a scoresheet calculation error may be involuntary

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Hingson entered into plea negotiations and pled nolo contendere to attempted sexual battery and lewd act upon a child in Case No. 86-205. The sentenci…

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
ERVIN, Judge.

ERVIN, Judge.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s summary denial of two motions for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 in Case No. 86-205 and Case No. 86-207. Appellant’s contentions with regard to Case No. 86-207 are without merit, therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order in that case. However, we reverse the order of denial in Case No. 86-205, because we cannot determine from the record before us that appellant is entitled to no relief.

Appellant entered into plea negotiations with the state attorney regarding four counts in Case No. 86-205, and ultimately pled nolo contendere to attempted sexual battery and lewd act upon a child. A sentencing guidelines scoresheet which accompanied appellant’s offer of plea, indicated a total score of 431 points. The recommended prison range for this score was between 17 and 22 years; appellant agreed to the state attorney’s recommendation of 20 years.1 At the time of his conviction in this case, appellant was on probation for previous crimes. He asserts that these previous offenses were improperly scored under the “prior record” category of the scoresheet pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(5), which had been amended effective October 1, 1986. Indeed, under the sentencing guidelines rules that were in effect when appellant committed the earlier offenses, appellant’s probation violations should have been scored as “additional offenses at conviction.” Mincey v. State, 525 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Peterson v. State, 523 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Slappy v. State, 516 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

Appellant claims that if his previous offenses had been properly scored, his total score would have been 363 points, with a recommended range of 12 to 17 years in prison, rather than 431 points, with a recommended range of 17 to 22 years. If appellant based his plea, agreeing to the state attorney’s recommendation of 20 years’ imprisonment, upon a belief that his guidelines score resulted in a recommended range of 17 to 22 years instead of 12 to 17 years, then his plea may be considered involuntary. The supreme court has held that a defendant should be permitted to withdraw a guilty plea when the plea was based upon a misapprehension of facts. Forbert v. State, 437 So. 2d 1079, 1081 (Fla.1983); Cleveland v. State, 394 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Britt v. State, 352 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).

It is, nevertheless, impossible to ascertain from the record before us which offenses were scored as “prior record.” The trial court should therefore conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the scoresheet was improperly scored, and, if so, whether appellant was influenced by the erroneous score in entering his plea.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

SHIVERS, C.J., and NIMMONS, J., concur. . Because Hingson received concurrent and consecutive sentences for other crimes not at issue here, his total sentence was 22 years’ imprisonment.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw