LESLIE C. WATSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1996-07-15
No. 95-3048
MINER, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
677 So. 2d 67 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1996) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order denying his motion for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Although we affirm, one matter merits discussion.

For the first time on appeal, appellant asserts that the sentencing guidelines score-sheet used by the trial court incorrectly identifies the primary offense at conviction as “robbery with a deadly weapon,” whereas the correct offense is “robbery with a weapon.” According to appellant, this error resulted in twelve additional points being added to his score, placing him in a higher sentencing range. Such a claim may be asserted by a rule 3.800(a) motion. However, because it was not presented to the trial court, and because the judgment is not a part of the record, we decline to address it. Our affir-mance is without prejudice to appellant’s right to present the claim to the trial court, by an appropriate motion.

AFFIRMED.

MINER, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Reggie Johnson v. State, 702 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
    …e, and Davis did not purport to change that. A claim that the primary offense at conviction was the wrong offense, placing the movant in a higher sentencing range, is still 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 tri…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw