DOUGLAS M. WILLIAMS

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2024-2941 LT Case No. 2021-CF-350-A _____________________________

DOUGLAS M. WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sumter County. Mary Pavloff Hatcher, Judge.

Douglas M. Williams, Bonifay, pro se.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Tabitha Mills, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

May 30, 2025

PER CURIAM.

Douglas M. Williams (“Williams”) appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the trial court would have imposed the same sentence had it been aware that an incorrect scoresheet had been used to calculate the sentence and

Williams later discovered that with the reduced credit, his sentence was no longer a time-served sentence. As a result, he filed a 3.800(a) motion, which was denied and affirmed on appeal, with Judge Makar noting in a special concurrence that the denial was without prejudice to the filing of a 3.850 motion. See Williams v. State, 389 So. 3d 541, 541 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024) (Makar, J., concurring in affirmance).

Williams then filed a 3.850 motion, but the postconviction court denied the motion concluding, in part, that “Defendant’s scoresheet indicates the charge of Burglary of a Dwelling, which Defendant was found not guilty of, was in fact, deleted from the scoresheet. . . . Consequently, Defendant’s claim is conclusively refuted by the record.” Williams now appeals.

When a postconviction court considers allegations in a 3.850 motion, Florida law mandates an evidentiary hearing unless the

Contrary to the standard under a 3.800(a) motion, which is whether the trial court could have imposed the same sentence, see Brooks v. State, 969 So. 2d 238, 243 (Fla. 2007), under a 3.850 motion, the test is whether the trial court would have imposed the same sentence. See State v. Anderson, 905 So. 2d 111, 118 (Fla. 2005); see also Val v. State, 741 So. 2d 1199, 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (reversing for resentencing because the court could not “conclude with certainty that appellant’s sentence would have been the same if the trial court had used a properly prepared scoresheet”); Williams v. State, 720 So. 2d 590, 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (remanding for resentencing with a corrected scoresheet because “it cannot be said that the same sentence would have been imposed absent the error we here correct”); Annunziata v. State, 697 So. 2d 997, 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (remanding “[b]ecause it does not appear beyond reasonable doubt that different sentences would not have been imposed had the correct score and range been presented to the trial court”); Jenkins v. State, 687 So. 2d 360, 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding that scoresheet error required reversal for resentencing because “we are unable to conclude that appellant’s sentence would have been the same had the trial court utilized a correctly calculated scoresheet”).

Here, it is clear that all parties believed Williams had over 35 months of jail credit when the 35-month sentence was imposed, and it is apparent that the calculation of 35 months was based on the inclusion of a conviction that all later agreed should not have been there, resulting in a sentence that does not appear to have

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the trial court would have imposed the same sentence had it been aware that an incorrect scoresheet had been used to calculate the sentence and that an incorrect amount of jail credit had been awarded resulting in a sentence that was not a time-served sentence. See Jenkins v. State, 687 So. 2d 360, 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding that scoresheet error required reversal for resentencing because “we are unable to conclude that appellant’s sentence would have been the same had the trial court utilized a correctly calculated scoresheet”).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

MAKAR, JAY, and MACIVER, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________