TERRY LEE HUMPHREY
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.
Terry Lee Humphrey appeals his convictions for sexual battery and lewd conduct offenses. The court affirmed his convictions and two of his sentences, but reversed and remanded counts 4 and 5 for resentencing because the trial court improperly included two prior convictions exceeding the ten-year lookback period in the sentencing scoresheet calculation.
The court affirmed without discussion the rulings excluding testimony and rejecting the jury instruction. The court affirmed the life sentences on counts 1-3 because the scoresheet error was harmless in light of Appellant's score well above the statutory life sentence threshold. The court reversed and remanded counts 4 and 5 for resentencing with a corrected scoresheet because the record did not conclusively show the trial court would have imposed the same sentences without the erroneous points.
[1] A prior conviction may not be included on a sentencing scoresheet if the defendant has not been convicted of any other crime for a period of 10 consecutive years from the…
[2] An error in a sentencing scoresheet calculation is harmless if the record conclusively shows that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence even with a correct…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 sentencing scoresheet erroneously included two prior convictions which occurred more than ten years before the primary offense where Appellant had not been "convicted of any other crime for a period of 10 consecutive years from the most recent date of release from confinement, supervision, or sanction, whichever is later, to the date of the primary offense." § 921.0021(5), Fla. Stat.”
Establishes the legal basis for why the prior convictions should have been excluded under Florida's 10-year lookback rule.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury convicted Humphrey of sexual battery on a minor, lewd or lascivious battery, lewd or lascivious molestation, lewd or lascivious conduct, and le…
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 Lewd Or Lascivious Exhibition cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA
No. 1D2024-0032
TERRY LEE HUMPHREY, Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County. Melissa G. Olin, Judge.
March 4, 2026
PER CURIAM.
A jury found Appellant Terry Lee Humphrey guilty of sexual battery on a minor at least 12 years old but less than 18, lewd or lascivious battery, lewd or lascivious molestation, lewd or lascivious conduct, and lewd or lascivious exhibition. He raises three issues for appellate review involving: (1) a ruling that certain Appellant-proffered testimony was inadmissible, (2) a rejected special jury instruction, and (3) the inclusion of two old, prior offenses in the sentencing scoresheet calculation.
Seeing no error on the first two issues, we affirm them without discussion. On the third issue, the State correctly concedes that the trial court used an incorrect scoresheet calculation at sentencing. Specifically, the sentencing scoresheet erroneously
included two prior convictions which occurred more than ten years before the primary offense where Appellant had not been “convicted of any other crime for a period of 10 consecutive years from the most recent date of release from confinement, supervision, or sanction, whichever is later, to the date of the primary offense." § 921.0021(5), Fla. Stat. The inclusion of these prior convictions added 7.20 points to the total score. We cannot say that the error was harmless because the record does not conclusively show that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence on counts 4 and 5 using a corrected scoresheet. See _Brooks v. State_, 969 So. 2d 238, 241 (Fla. 2007). If the prior convictions had been excluded from the scoresheet, counts 4 and 5 would have received lower minimum sentences based on the scoresheet formula, which, in turn, may have altered the trial court's sentences on those counts. We thus remand counts 4 and 5 for resentencing with a corrected scoresheet.
Conversely, the trial court would have imposed life sentences on counts 1 through 3 even if the prior convictions had not been erroneously included on the scoresheet. Appellant's score without the extra 7.20 points would have still put him well above the statutory threshold necessary for the imposition of a life sentence. § 921.0024(2), Fla. Stat. (2025). And here, the record conclusively shows that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence if using a correct scoresheet. See _Brooks_, 969 So. 2d at 241. We therefore affirm the life sentences in counts 1 through 3, since the scoresheet error was harmless as to these counts.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED for resentencing as to counts 4 and 5.
OSTERHAUS, C.J., and ROWE and BILBREY, JJ., concur. Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Richard M. Bracey, III, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Travis Wesley Munden, Assistant Attorney General, and David Welch, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.