RAY A. OWENS, 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.
Ray Owens appeals his probation violation sentence as illegal. The trial court applied a five-cell guideline bump-up when the scoresheet supported only a two-cell bump-up, resulting in sentences exceeding the permitted range. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing.
The trial court erred in sentencing Owens to five and ten years because the scoresheet clearly reflected only a two-cell bump-up was permitted, making the sentences illegal and subject to review under rule 3.800(a).
[1] An illegal sentence, based on an erroneous calculation on the face of the scoresheet, is reviewable under a motion to correct illegal sentence.
[2] A five-cell bump up in sentencing guidelines is erroneous when only a two-cell bump up is permitted based on the number of probation violations.
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“It is apparent from the face of the score-sheet the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant to five years in prison on count I and ten years in prison on count II, a five-cell bump up.”
Establishes that the sentencing error was clearly visible on the scoresheet itself
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOwens pleaded nolo contendere in 1992 to drug possession and cocaine sale charges, receiving a suspended jail sentence, community control, and probati…
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 Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Ray A. Owens, appeals from an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We reverse and remand for resentencing.
Appellant was charged with and pled nolo contendere in 1992 to the charges of possession of a controlled substance and sale and delivery of cocaine. At the time, his score-sheet showed a recommended sentencing range of two and one-half years to three and one-half years in prison and a permitted range of community control or one to four and one-half years in prison. He was sentenced to one year in county jail, suspended, one year of community control on both counts, each to run concurrent, and to four years’ probation on each count, each to run concurrent but consecutive to the community control.
In 1994 appellant was charged with and pled guilty to violation of probation and was sentenced to five years in prison on count 1 and to ten years in prison on count II, concurrent with each other. At the time of the sentencing, appellant’s scoresheet reflected a recommended sentencing range of three and one-half years to four and one-half years in prison and a permitted sentencing range of two and one-half years to five and one-half years in prison. The scoresheet further reflected “w/5 bumps up to 12-27 years [on one count] and up to 17 years [on one count].”
Appellant takes the position that his sentence was illegal because it was based on a five-cell bump up from the guidelines when he should have had only a two-cell bump up based on the two violations of probation. The scoresheet correctly reflects a recommended sentencing range of three and one-half years to four and one-half years and a permitted sentencing range of two and one-half years to five and one-half years in prison, a permitted two-cell bump up. The scoresheet also contained the language “w/5 bumps up to 12-27 years [and] up to 17 years.”
It is apparent from the face of the score-sheet the trial court erred in sentencing the appeUant to five years in prison on count I and ten years in prison on count II, a five-ceU bump up. Because the erroneous calculation on the face of the scoresheet is an error apparent on the face of the record, it is reviewable under a rule 3.800 motion. See Harris v. State, 659 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
We reject appeUant’s other sentencing chaUenges as lacking merit.
Reversed and remanded for resentencing.
POLEN, KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hernandez v. State, 698 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…’s score-sheet will total 123 points, for a 5^ to 7 year sentencing range, instead of 250 points, for a 12-17 year sentencing range. An erroneous calculation apparent on the face of the scoresheet is reviewable under rule 3.800. See Owens v. State, 667 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The state has conceded the errors which are apparent on the face of the scoresheet and requests that the trial court be allowed an opportunity to correct them. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for such correction and for re-se…
-
Reggie Johnson v. State, 702 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ll a claim that may be asserted by rule 3.800(a) motion. See Watson v. State, 677 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). If an erroneous score-sheet calculation is apparent on the face of the record, it is reviewable under rule 3.800(a). See Owens v. State, 667 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Accordingly, we reverse and remand and direct the trial court to consider Appellant’s motion on the merits. DELL, WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.…
-
Glanton v. State, 705 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…ate, 679 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Terrell v. State, 668 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Because the erroneous scoresheet calculation herein is apparent on the face of the record, it is reviewable under a rule 3.800 motion. See Owens v. State, 667 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Harris v. State, 659 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). As it appears to us from our reading of the scoresheet included in the record that the sentence imposed falls outside the permissible bump-up range, we must reverse and reman…
Authorities Cited
- Alcoma Packing Co. & Executive Risk Consultants v. Cowan, 659 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)