CEDRIC JENKINS, 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 affirmed but sentence reversed due to mathematical error in scoresheet calculation that could not be presumed harmless under Florida sentencing guidelines.
A mathematical error in calculating sentencing points requires reversal of sentence even when the imposed sentence falls within the permissible range, because the court cannot be presumed to have imposed the same sentence had it used the correct scoresheet.
[1] A mathematical error in calculating sentencing points under Florida's sentencing guidelines requires reversal of sentence and remand for resentencing, even when the impos…
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 intelligence“we are unable to conclude that appellant's sentence would have been the same had the trial court utilized a correctly calculated scoresheet”
Explaining why the harmless error doctrine does not apply to scoresheet calculation errors
Appellant Jenkins was convicted and sentenced to 40 months in state prison, but the state conceded that a mathematical error in the scoresheet calcula…
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.
We affirm appellant s conviction but reverse appellant’s sentence. The state concedes that a mathematical error was made in the scoresheet calculation. Using the correct total sentencing points would result in a recommended state prison sentence of 37 months, rather than the 40 months which was imposed.
The state urges, however, that the error is harmless, because the sentence falls within the variation permitted by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.703(d)(25). See also § 921.0014, 921.0016, Fla. Stat. (1995). As we stated in Shabazz v. State, 674 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), we are unable to conclude that appellant’s sentence would have been the same had the trial court .utilized a correctly calculated scoresheet. This case involves the new procedure for calculating sentences where an exact amount of state prison months is calculated. Then a range is calculated from that figure. In the instant case, the court sentenced appellant to the recommended state prison months and did not increase his sentence within the range allowed. The court may well do the same on remand under the corrected scoresheet.
Affirmed as to conviction; reversed as to sentence and remanded for further proceedings.
GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Anderson, 905 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2005)…ate, 697 So. 2d 997, 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (remanding “[b]ecause it does not appear beyond reasonable doubt that different sentences would not have been imposed had the correct score and range been presented to the trial court”); Jenkins v. State, 687 So. 2d 360, 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding that scoresheet error required reversal for re-sentencing because “we are unable to conclude that appellant’s sentence would have been the same had the trial court utilized a correctly calculated scoresheet”); Diaz…
-
Williams v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Abdullah Shabazz v. State, 674 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)