LIANA MONTANEZ, 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.
The court held that while the sentence was affirmed, the scoresheet used for sentencing contained a scrivener's error that must be corrected on remand.
[1] A trial court must correct a scrivener's error on a defendant's scoresheet, even if the court would have imposed the same sentence.
[2] A defendant may move to correct a sentencing error by pointing out that victim injury should not have been scored under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.704(d)(9).
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of grand theft and sentenced. She filed a motion to correct sentencing error, arguing victim injury points were improperly…
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 Correction Of Sentencing Error cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm' without discussion Liana Montanez’s judgment and sentence for grand theft. However, we require the correction of Ms. Montanez’s scoresheet on remand.
A jury found Ms. Montanez guilty of a single count of grand theft. The trial court sentenced her to two years on community control. The scoresheet used at sentencing scores four points for victim injury. After filing her notice of appeal, Ms. Mon-tanez filed a motion to correct sentencing error in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). In her motion, Ms. Montanez pointed out that victim injury should not have been scored for the grand theft. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.704(d)(9). Ms. Montanez noted that the subtraction of four points for victim injury changed the scoresheet total from 23.4 points to 19 points, which would require a *541non-state prison sentence, unless the trial court made written findings that a non-state prison sentence could present a danger to the public. § 775.082(10), Fla. Stat. (2010); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.704(d)(29). Because she had been sentenced to community control, Ms. Montanez explained in her motion that resentencing was not necessary if the trial court determined that it would have imposed the same sentence despite the scoresheet error. Finally, Ms. Montanez informed the trial court that if it decided that resentencing was not necessary, the scoresheet should still be corrected.
The trial court entered an order denying the motion, noting that it “would have imposed the same sentence regardless if the court was required to sentence the Defendant to a non-state prison sanction pursuant to Fla. Stat. 775.082(10).” However, the trial court did not correct the scoresheet. _ As the State concedes, the scrivener’s error in the scoresheet should have been corrected. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court shall correct the scrivener’s error in the scoresheet. See Holmes v. State, 109 So.3d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Jones v. State, 96 So.3d 1122, 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).
Affirmed, but remanded with instructions.
SILBERMAN, KELLY, and WALLACE, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dandre Curtez Russell v. State, 261 So. 3d 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…l's motion to correct sentencing error, the scoresheet erroneously assessed four additional legal status points and twelve additional community violation points. Accordingly, we remand for the court to correct those errors. See Montanez v. State, 160 So. 3d 540, 541 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).1 Affirmed; remanded with instructions. KHOUZAM, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur. 1We note that even where a scoresheet error is innocuous, like in this case, the trial court should ensure th…
Authorities Cited
- Holmes v. State, 109 So. 3d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Jones v. State, 96 So. 3d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)