RAYMOND PLATT
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.
When a defendant challenges prior conviction points in a sentencing scoresheet under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(1), the State must provide competent evidence demonstrating that the scoring method was correct, including evidence of the defendant's release from confinement or supervision within the required timeframe.
[1] In a challenge to prior conviction points on a sentencing scoresheet under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(1), the State bears the burden of providing compete…
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“the record conclusively shows that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence using a correct scoresheet”
Court explaining why remand for correction of scoresheet only, without resentencing, was appropriate
Raymond Platt appealed his sentence challenging six issues. The trial court erroneously added 3.2 points for prior convictions more than fifteen years…
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 Scoresheet Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Appellant appeals his sentence raising six issues. We remand on one of these issues and otherwise affirm without discussion. The State concedes the trial court erroneously added 3.2 points for prior convictions more than fifteen years old. Defendant challenged the inclusion of the priors in a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(1) motion, and the State declined to provide competent evidence demonstrating the appellant’s release “from confinement, supervision, or other sanction” within ten years of the new offense. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.704(d)(14)(A); cf. Dresch v. State, 150 So. 3d 1199, 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (holding the State was required to provide competent evidence that the defendant had committed the crimes listed on his scoresheet when he challenged the inclusion of the crimes in a rule 3.800(b)(1) motion). Accordingly, we remand with instructions to the trial court to correct the scoresheet. See Naugle v. State, 244 So. 3d 1127, 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). We do not remand for resentencing, however, because “the record conclusively shows that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence using a correct scoresheet.” Id. (quoting Brooks v. State, 969 So. 2d 238, 241 (Fla. 2007)).
2
Affirmed; remanded for correction of scoresheet only. DAMOORGIAN, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jeromee Saffold v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Brooks v. State, 969 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2007)
- Dresch v. State, 150 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Naugle v. State, 244 So. 3d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)