TONEY MITCHELL, 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.
Toney Mitchell appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence for second-degree murder, arguing that his sentencing scoresheet improperly included points for possession of a firearm. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing under a corrected scoresheet, holding that scoresheet errors resulting in illegal sentences can be challenged under Rule 3.800(a) at any time, even if not raised on direct appeal.
The court held that the scoresheet error was illegal because Florida law prohibits adding points for firearm possession when the conviction is for an enumerated felony like murder. Since Mitchell received the maximum guidelines sentence based on the erroneous scoresheet, the sentence was illegal and could not have been imposed under a correct scoresheet. Claims of illegal sentences under Rule 3.800(a) can be asserted at any time, even if they could have been raised on direct appeal.
[1] A sentence is illegal if the scoresheet used to calculate it improperly includes points for the possession of a firearm during the commission of an enumerated felony.
[2] A claim that a sentence is illegal can be asserted at any time under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), even if the issue could have been raised on direct appea…
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“Section 921.0014(1), Florida Statutes (1995), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.702(d)(12) prohibit the addition of points for possession of a firearm where the conviction is for an enumerated felony under section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1995).”
Establishes the legal prohibition that was violated by Mitchell's scoresheet
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMitchell was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and second-degree murder. He was sentenced to 304.2 months for the second-degre…
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 Error cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1262] CANADY, Judge.
Toney Mitchell appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence based on a scoresheet error. We reverse and remand.
Mitchell was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and second-degree murder. He was subsequently sentenced to 304.2 months in prison for his second-degree murder conviction, with a three-year minimum mandatory for use of a firearm. The sentence of 304.2 months was the maximum guidelines sentence based on the scoresheet used by the sentencing court. Mitchell also received a concurrent sentence of 180 months in prison on his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Mitchell challenges his second-degree murder sentence on the ground that his scoresheet improperly included sentence points for the possession of a firearm.
Mitchell’s scoresheet included eighteen points for the possession of a firearm during the commission of the murder offense. Section 921.0014(1), Florida Statutes (1995), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.702(d)(12) prohibit the addition of points for possession of a firearm where the conviction is for an enumerated felony under section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1995). See Kelly v. State, 796 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Murder is an enumerated felony under section 775.087(2)(a). The inclusion on Mitchell’s scoresheet of eighteen points for possession of a firearm was therefore erroneous. Since Mitchell was given the maximum guidelines sentence, the scoresheet error resulted in the imposition of a sentence that could not have been imposed — absent a departure— under a correct scoresheet.
The postconviction trial court, in rejecting Mitchell’s claim, observed that an objection to the scoresheet error had been “raised and denied” in the sentencing proceeding. The postconviction court cited Moore v. State, 768 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), in support of the principle that issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal are “not cognizable on collateral attack.” The Moore court specifically acknowledged, however, that “a claim that the sentence is illegal can be asserted at any time in a proceeding under rule 3.800(a) even if it could have been raised earlier.” 768 So. 2d at 1143.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to resentence Mitchell under a corrected scoresheet. See Kelly, 796 So. 2d 578.
Reversed and remanded.
NORTHCUTT and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hoag v. State, 12 So. 3d 907 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…tate, 969 So. 2d 238, 243 (Fla.2007). When a defendant is sentenced to the maximum guidelines sentence, a scoresheet error that improperly adds sentencing points to the total requires resentencing using a corrected scoresheet. See Mitchell v. State, 880 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“[T]he scoresheet error resulted in the imposition of a sentence that could not have been imposed — absent a departure-under a correct scoresheet.... Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to resentence Mitc…
-
Gautreaux v. State, 95 So. 3d 1012 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…tencing guidelines scoresheet. This court, citing Brooks, reversed and remanded for resentencing under a corrected scoresheet because Hoag’s sentence could not have been imposed absent a departure. Hoag, 12 So. 3d at 908; see also Mitchell v. State, 880 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Perez v. State, 20 So. 3d 440, 442-43 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Goings v. State, 990 So. 2d 1228, 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). In the instant case, the twenty-five-year prison sentences on counts two and three could not have been…
-
Speights v. State, 102 So. 3d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…ourt in 1987 "could have imposed” the life sentences. See Brooks v. State, 969 So. 2d 238, 243 (Fla.2007) (”[I]f the trial court could have imposed the same sentence using a correct scoresheet, any error was harmless.’’); see also Mitchell v. State, 880 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). . Because the issue is not before this court, we offer no opinion regarding whether the sentencing court may empanel a jury on remand to address the sentence-related factual findings necessary under Apprendi. See Hughes v.…
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. State, 768 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Kelly v. State, 796 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)