ALTON NAPPER
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.
Scoresheet error is harmless when the record conclusively shows the trial court would have imposed the same sentence using a correct scoresheet.
[1] Scoresheet error is harmless if the record conclusively demonstrates that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence using a correct scoresheet.
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 intelligenceDefendant Alton Napper pleaded to four charges and was sentenced. His sentencing scoresheet contained an error where an additional offense was scored …
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 Would-Have-Been-Imposed Test cases and more on FLexlaw
CONNER, J.
Alton Napper (“Defendant”), timely appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), alleging an error in his scoresheet. Defendant was sentenced after pleading to four charges. Both Defendant and the State agree that there was an error in Defendant’s scoresheet where one of the additional offenses listed on the scoresheet was scored as 2.4 points, when it should have added only 1.2 points. “Under the ‘would-have-been-imposed’ test, scoresheet error is considered harmless if the record conclusively shows that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence using a correct scoresheet.” Harmon v. State, 284 So. 3d 1080, 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (quoting Ray v. State, 987 So. 2d 155, 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)). Our review of the record convinces us that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence if it had been presented with a correct scoresheet. Thus, we affirm the sentence but remand for the sole purpose of directing the trial court to correct the scoresheet. See id. Defendant “need not be present for the ministerial act of correcting the scoresheet on remand.” Id.
2
Affirmed; remanded solely for correction of scoresheet. LEVINE, C.J., and GROSS, J., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- RAY v. State, 987 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Harmon v. State, 284 So. 3d 1080 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)