ULYSSESS SMITH, 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.
Ulyssess Smith appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing his attempted manslaughter conviction was improperly scored as a level 6 offense rather than level 5. The court reversed and remanded, holding that under the 'would have' standard, the state must prove the same sentence would have been imposed under a corrected scoresheet, which the record failed to establish.
The court reversed the postconviction court's denial of Smith's claim one. Under the 'would have' standard applied in this district, postconviction relief must be granted unless the record establishes the sentence would have been the same under a corrected scoresheet. Because the limited record failed to establish this, the case was remanded for the postconviction court to calculate the correct scoresheet and determine appropriate relief.
[1] A conviction for attempted manslaughter, a violation of sections 782.07(1) and 777.04(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), is properly scored as a level 5 offense.
[2] Under the 'would have' standard, a trial court must grant postconviction relief unless the record establishes that the sentence would have been the same under a corrected…
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“Under this standard, the trial court must grant postconviction relief unless the record establishes that the sentence 'would have' been the same under a corrected scoresheet.”
Establishes the burden of proof standard for sentencing correction claims—the state must prove identical sentencing would result from corrected scoresheet.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith was convicted of attempted manslaughter under sections 782.07(1) and 777.04(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1995). The postconviction court denied his …
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 Sentencing Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
VILLANTI, Judge.
Ulyssess Smith appeals the postconviction court’s summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse the postconviction court’s summary denial of claim one and affirm, without comment, the postconviction court’s ruling on claims two and three.
In claim one, Smith alleged his attempted manslaughter conviction was erroneously listed and scored as a level 6 offense when it should have been listed and scored as a level 5 offense. The postconviction court denied this claim, finding that Smith’s attempted manslaughter conviction, a violation of sections 782.07(1) and 777.04(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), was properly listed and scored as a level six offense.
The State now concedes that Smith’s attempted manslaughter conviction should have been listed and scored as a level 5 offense. See Cruz v. State, 789 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). However, the State argues that Smith is not entitled to be resentenced because the sentence imposed would have been a legal sentence with the corrected scoresheet calculating the at tempted manslaughter conviction at level 5.
“This district currently applies the ‘would have’ standard to determine if postconviction relief is available under rule 3.800(a).” Wilson v. State, 913 So. 2d 1277, 1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); see also Mathews v. State, 907 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Wilson v. State, 877 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). “Under this standard, the trial court must grant postconviction relief unless the record establishes that the sentence ‘would have’ been the same under a corrected scoresheet.” Wilson, 913 So. 2d at 1279; see also Mathews, 907 So. 2d at 1291-92. Based on the limited record before this court, there is no record evidence establishing that the same sentence “would have” been imposed under the corrected scoresheet.
Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court’s denial of claim one and remand for the postconviction court to calculate a correct scoresheet and then to determine what, if any, relief is appropriate as a result of that scoresheet.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
NORTHCUTT and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wilson v. State, 877 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Boris Osadchuk v. Verkaik, 913 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Wilson v. State, 913 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Mathews v. State, 907 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Cruz v. State, 789 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)