WILFREDO DELGADO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sentencing Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion for Rehearing
SUAREZ, J.
We grant the defendant’s motion for rehearing, set aside the opinion of February 14, 2007, and substitute the following opinion:
The defendant appeals the denial of his motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) on grounds that his sentence was greater than that allowed by law due to the incorrect calculation of his scoresheet points. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s 3.800(a) motion.
Acknowledging the concession by the State as to the correct calculation of the defendant’s scoresheet, which would not have resulted in the lowering of his sentence, we hold that the validity of the reasons for the trial court’s departure from the guidelines scoresheet sentence cannot be attacked by a 3.800(a) motion. Concepcion v. State, 944 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Isom v. State, 915 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); see also Wood v. State, 867 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
Therefore, the trial court was correct in denying the 3.800(a) motion.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hogan v. State, 12 So. 3d 835 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…. State, 864 So. 2d 1153, 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (en banc)); see also Blount v. State, 627 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (determining that the validity of reasons for departure could not be raised in a motion to correct sentence); Delgado v. State, 973 So. 2d 644, 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (holding that the validity of departure reasons “cannot be attacked by a 3.800(a) motion”). Thus, it appears that Hogan does not have a cognizable rule 3.800(a) claim regarding the sufficiency of the reasons for the retention…
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. State, 944 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Isom v. State, 915 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Wood v. State, 867 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)