Atkins v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Atkins v. State

787 So. 2d 57, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2019, 2001 WL 173278

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 23, 2001

DocketNo. 2D00-927

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 787 So. 2d 57 (Atkins v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atkins v. State, 787 So. 2d 57, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2019, 2001 WL 173278 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.

Following the violation of his probation, David Atkins presents two alleged sentencing errors. We find merit in neither and, accordingly, affirm.

Atkins’ primary concern is that the trial court used a corrected scoresheet when imposing the sentences upon violation of probation; specifically, a scoresheet that used a different category resulting in a higher sentencing range. In sentencing a defendant after a revocation of probation, the court has authority to revise the guidelines scoresheet to include prior convictions that were mistakenly omitted from the original scoresheet. See Roberts v. State, 644 So.2d 81 (Fla.1994). The error here was not missing prior convictions, but the incorrect category. Roberts discusses the fact that the defendant received the benefit of the scoresheet error at his original sentencing and there is no reason to “perpetuate the error.” Roberts, 644 So.2d at 82. “Justice is not served by awarding a defendant something to which he is not entitled.” Id. Applying Roberts, the trial court properly used the corrected scoresheet.

Regarding Adkins’ second concern, he is entitled, as determined by the trial court, to credit for time served in accordance with Tripp v. State, 622 So.2d 941 (Fla.1993).

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.

Following the violation of his probation, David Atkins presents two alleged sentencing errors. We find merit in neither and, accordingly, affirm.

Atkins’ primary concern is that the trial court used a corrected scoresheet when imposing the sentences upon violation of probation; specifically, a scoresheet that used a different category resulting in a higher sentencing range. In sentencing a defendant after a revocation of probation, the court has authority to revise the guidelines scoresheet to include prior convictions that were mistakenly omitted from the original scoresheet. See Roberts v. State, 644 So.2d 81 (Fla.1994). The error here was not missing prior convictions, but the incorrect category. Roberts discusses the fact that the defendant received the benefit of the scoresheet error at his original sentencing and there is no reason to “perpetuate the error.” Roberts, 644 So.2d at 82. “Justice is not served by awarding a defendant something to which he is not entitled.” Id. Applying Roberts, the trial court properly used the corrected scoresheet.

Regarding Adkins’ second concern, he is entitled, as determined by the trial court, to credit for time served in accordance with Tripp v. State, 622 So.2d 941 (Fla.1993).

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

787 So. 2d 57, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2019, 2001 WL 173278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkins-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack