POMA
v.
STATE
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.
When a trial court vacates sentences on some counts and the remaining sentences are discretionary, the defendant must be present for resentencing with a corrected scoresheet.
[1] A defendant's failure to object to an amended scoresheet does not preclude an appeal if the amended scoresheet contains an apparent error on its face.
[2] A scoresheet must reflect additional points for each prior category six felony conviction, in addition to points for the prior record in general.
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“At the new sentencing proceeding, the trial court is free to impose the same sentences it previously imposed on counts three and four.”
The court clarified that on remand, the trial court retains discretion to impose identical or different legal sentences.
Diviel Poma was sentenced on five counts. The trial court vacated two of those counts but failed to hold a resentencing hearing with the defendant pre…
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 Corrected Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Diviel Poma, the defendant, appeals the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. The defendant argues several points, one of which was the failure of the trial court to have the defendant present for resentencing after it vacated two of the five counts upon which the defendant had been previously sentenced. The trial court determined that resentencing with the defendant present was not necessary because it was simply vacating the sentences on two of his counts. However, because the sentences imposed on the remaining counts were discretionary, the trial court was required to have the defendant present for resentencing with a corrected scoresheet. See Jordan v. State, 143 So. 3d 335, 338 (Fla. 2014); Fernandez v. State, 199 So. 3d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Brown v. State, 219 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). On remand, the trial court is free to impose the same sentence or any legal sentence. See State v. Davis, 133 So. 3d 1101, 1107 n.9 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (Emas, J.) (“At the new sentencing proceeding, the trial court is free to impose the same sentences it previously imposed on counts three and four.”); Sconiers v. State, 734 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (“On remand, the trial court is free to impose the same sentence.”). We affirm in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing with the defendant present before the trial court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Luc Termitus, JR. v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Jordan v. State, 143 So. 3d 335 (Fla. 2014)
- Fernandez v. State, 199 So. 3d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
- Antuan Lawrence Sconiers v. State, 734 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- State v. Davis, 133 So. 3d 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Arrington Brown v. State, 219 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)