JOSHUA J. MURPHY
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 convictions on a criminal punishment scoresheet, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing if necessary to verify the existence and accuracy of those convictions.
[1] A trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing when a defendant challenges the accuracy of their criminal punishment code scoresheet by claiming the inclusion of prior co…
[2] The State bears the burden of producing competent evidence of a disputed prior conviction when the defense challenges its inclusion on a criminal punishment code scoreshe…
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 intelligence“When the defense challenges prior convictions and the accuracy of the scoresheet, the [S]tate has the burden of producing competent evidence of the disputed conviction.”
Citing DeGeso v. State, establishing the State's burden of proof regarding prior convictions in sentencing disputes.
Joshua Murphy was convicted of failure to report in person to a driver's license office within forty-eight hours after a change in his transient resid…
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 Burden Of Proof For Prior Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
JOSHUA J. MURPHY, DOC #H25977, )
) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-731 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) )
Opinion filed May 31, 2019.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Nancy Moate Ley, Judge.
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Keith W. Upson, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Elba Caridad Martin, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Joshua Murphy appeals his judgment and sentence for one count of failure to report in person to a driver's license office within forty-eight hours after a change in his transient residence. We affirm in all respects save one.
Pending resolution of this appeal, Mr. Murphy filed a motion to correct sentencing errors pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2)(B). In his motion, Mr. Murphy disputed the inclusion of fourteen points scored on his criminal punishment code scoresheet for a prior conviction that, he claimed, did not exist. The trial court denied Mr. Murphy's motion without a hearing. This was error.
"When the defense challenges prior convictions and the accuracy of the scoresheet, the [S]tate has the burden of producing competent evidence of the disputed conviction." DeGeso v. State, 771 So. 2d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (quoting
Watson v. State, 591 So. 2d 951, 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)). "A claim that a defendant's scoresheet erroneously included as scored prior convictions crimes for which he or she had never been convicted requires an evidentiary hearing." Purifoy v. State, 10 So. 3d
197, 200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (citing Walker v. State, 940 So. 2d 1215, 1216 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2996)); see also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B) (directing trial courts to follow the procedure under rule 3.800(b)(1)(B), which provides that an evidentiary hearing should be held if necessary). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the court to convene an evidentiary hearing on Mr. Murphy's claim and for the court to then resentence Mr.
Murphy if necessary. See Lyons v. State, 823 So. 2d 250, 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
It also appears that the trial court erroneously combined a $151 fine authorized under section 938.01, Florida Statutes (2017), with $550 in felony court costs, for a total of $701 which the trial court erroneously labeled as a single fine for crimes against a minor. On remand, the trial court shall enter a corrected judgment for fines and costs showing that the $151 fine and $550 in costs are separate.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with instructions.
NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jonny Sanders v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Watson v. State, 591 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Lyons v. State, 823 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- DeGESO v. State, 771 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Wright v. State, 940 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Purifoy v. State, 10 So. 3d 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Jere Andre Walker v. State, 940 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)