DANDRE CURTEZ RUSSELL
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed probation revocation and sentencing but remanded for correction of scoresheet errors that assessed four additional legal status points and twelve additional community violation points.
A trial court must correct scoresheet errors even if harmless, and cannot decline to rectify minor sentencing errors on the ground that they are harmless.
[1] A trial court must correct scoresheet errors of which it is aware before entering judgment, even if the errors are deemed harmless, and cannot decline to rectify minor se…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“to avoid questions in future proceedings, we remand for the scrivener's error on the scoresheet to be corrected”
The court cited Holmes v. State for the principle that trial courts should correct scoresheet errors to avoid future questions.
Dandre Curtez Russell's probation was revoked and he was sentenced. The trial court recognized in its order denying his motion to correct sentencing e…
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 Legal Status Points cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the order revoking Mr. Russell's probation and imposing
sentence without comment. However, as the trial court recognized in its order denying
Mr. Russell'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 that any mistakes of which it is aware are corrected before entering a judgment. See Holmes v. State, 109 So. 3d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("[T]o avoid questions in future proceedings, we remand for the scrivener's error on the scoresheet to be corrected."). A trial court should not decline, as the trial court did in this case, to rectify minor sentencing errors on the ground that the errors are harmless. See Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice § 27:4 (2018 ed.) ("The harmless error rule is designed to encourage a realistic approach to appellate review by allowing the appellate courts to consider not only the existence of error at the trial level, but the effect of the error." (emphasis added)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Holmes v. State, 109 So. 3d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Liana Montanez v. State, 160 So. 3d 540 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)