REGGIE JOHNSON, 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.
Court reversed summary denial of motion to correct sentence, holding that erroneous sentencing guideline scoresheets remain cognizable under rule 3.800(a) despite prior misinterpretation of Davis v. State.
Rule 3.800(a) permits correction of an incorrect calculation in a sentencing guideline scoresheet, including claims that the primary offense at conviction was wrongly identified, placing the defendant in a higher sentencing range.
[1] Rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, permits correction of an incorrect calculation in a sentencing guideline scoresheet, including identification of the w…
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“Rule 3.800(a) still allows a court to correct 'an incorrect calculation made by it in a sentencing guideline scoresheet' at any time, and Davis did not purport to change that.”
Court clarifying the scope of rule 3.800(a) and rejecting the state's misstatement of Davis
Johnson was charged with armed robbery but entered a negotiated plea to strong armed robbery; his sentencing scoresheet incorrectly listed the primary…
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 Primary Offense At Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Reggie Johnson appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct sentence, filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, alleging he was sentenced pursuant to an erroneous sentencing guidelines scoresheet. The scoresheet showed the primary offense at conviction to be the armed robbery with which he was charged rather than the strong armed robbery to which he entered a negotiated plea, placing him in a higher guideline sentence cell. It appears that the denial was based on a response by the state that guideline issues are no longer cognizable under rule 3.800(a), pursuant to Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995), which in fact was a misstatement of the law. Rule 3.800(a) still allows a court to correct “an incorrect calculation made by it in a sentencing guideline scoresheet” at any time, 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 trial court to consider Appellant’s motion on the merits.
DELL, WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Forrest Atwood v. State, 765 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…entencing guideline scoresheet.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a); see Orosco v. State, 730 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). “If an erroneous scoresheet calculation is apparent on the face of the record, it is renewable under rule 3.800(a).” Johnson v. State, 702 So. 2d 247, 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Lewis v. State, 719 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Corp v. State, 698 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Horton v. State, 696 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Thus, although scoresheet-based sentencing errors under Rule 3.800…
-
McCLAIN v. State, 157 So. 3d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…or is apparent on the face of the record. See Atwood v. State, 765 So. 2d 242, 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (“If an erroneous scoresheet calculation is apparent on the face of the record, it is reviewable under rule 3.800(a).”) (quoting Johnson v. State, 702 So. 2d 247, 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)); Lewis v. State, 719 So. 2d 924, 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (reversing where the trial court denied a claim of scoresheet error on the basis that it was not apparent from the face of the scoresheet rather than considering whet…
-
Tosco v. State, 724 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…on the mistaken assumption that this issue was not cognizable by way of a 3.800(a) motion. “Rule 3.800(a) still allows a court to correct ‘an incorrect calculation made by it in a sentencing guidelines scoresheet’ at any time....” Johnson v. State, 702 So. 2d 247, 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (citing Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a)). “Because the erroneous score-sheet calculation herein is apparent on the face of the record, it is reviewable under a rule 3.800 motion.” Glanton v. State, 705 So. 2d 945, 946 (Fla. 1st DCA…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995)
- Owens v. State, 667 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Watson v. State, 677 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)