ONEIL DARTEZ, 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.
Appellant Dartez challenges his sentence claiming the trial court erroneously added 36 legal constraint points to his sentencing scoresheet for a probation violation when he was not actually on probation at the time of the offense. The court reversed the summary denial of his sentence correction motion and remanded for the trial court to either demonstrate he is not entitled to relief or resentence him with a corrected scoresheet.
The trial court erred in summarily denying the motion to correct sentence. The record excerpts support the allegation that appellant was not on probation when he committed the offense, making the inclusion of 36 legal constraint points erroneous and not harmless error.
[1] A trial court errs in summarily denying a motion to correct sentence when the record excerpts appended to the motion support the allegation that legal constraint points w…
[2] The erroneous inclusion of legal constraint points on a defendant's scoresheet is not harmless error if the defendant was not on probation when the instant offense was co…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 record excerpts appended to the appellant's motion support the allegation that appellant was not on probation when he committed the instant offense of aggravated battery on November 2, 1991”
Establishes the factual basis for finding error in the scoresheet calculation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant committed aggravated battery on November 2, 1991. The trial court included 36 legal constraint points in his sentencing scoresheet based on …
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 Rule 3.800(A) Motion To Correct Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct sentence in which he alleges that the trial court erroneously added 36 legal constraint points to his scoresheet for violating probation. We reverse the summary denial and remand for the trial court to attach portions of the record demonstrating that appellant is not entitled to relief or to resentence appellant based on a corrected scoresheet.
The record excerpts appended to the appellant’s motion support the allegation that appellant was not on probation when he committed the instant offense of aggravated battery on November 2, 1991. As a result, 36 legal constraint points appear to have been erroneously added to his score-sheet, and the inclusion of those points on subsequent scoresheets was not harmless error. See Looney v. State, 728 So. 2d 321, 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of appellant’s claim and remand the case for the trial court to attach portions of the record demonstrating that the appellant is not entitled to relief or to resentence appellant based on a corrected scoresheet.1 See Bigham v. State, 761 So. 2d 431, 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Prescott v. State, 698 So. 2d 602, 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
JOANOS, KAHN, and BROWNING, JJ., concur. . Although the appellant’s initial plea agreement indicates he agreed to be habitualized, the judgment and sentencing documentation in the record on appeal does not conclusively demonstrate that he was actually habitual-ized. If the appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender, then an erroneous inclusion of legal constraint points would be harmless error. See Sellers v. State, 578 So. 2d 339, 341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
However, the appellant initially received a sentence that was a downward departure from the guidelines recommendation and was inconsistent with a habitual offender sentence. In addition, the judgment and sentencing documentation does not indicate whether or not he was habitual-ized. See King v. State, 681 So. 2d 1136, 1139 (Fla.1996)(stating that habitualization is a two-step process in which the trial court judge first determines whether a defendant qualifies for habitualization and then decides whether the defendant will be habitualized).
If the appellant was not habitualized at the sentencing for the aggravated battery offense, then the trial court could not have habitual-ized him for any of the subsequent probation violations, and the erroneous inclusion of legal constraint points would not have been harmless. See Id. at 1140.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- King v. State, 681 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1996)
- Louie Anthony Sellers v. State, 578 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Fernandez v. Efigenia Nancy Fernandez, 578 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Prescott v. State, 698 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Bigham v. State, 761 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Looney v. State, 728 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)