Harris v. State
This text of 810 So. 2d 1093 (Harris 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.
Opinion
Rudolph HARRIS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
*1094 Rudolph Harris, Lawtey, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea, Rudolph Harris was convicted of the lesser-included offense of possession of cocaine and received a four year sentence. In his Rule 3.850[1] motion, he alleges the existence of several errors in his scoresheet. The trial court in its order acknowledges the existence of scoresheet errors but declined to grant any relief because he entered a plea in exchange for a specific term of years.
The trial court ruled correctly. Scoresheet errors are harmless when the sentence is the result of a negotiated plea agreement. See, e.g., Hill v. State, 730 So.2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). The transcript reflects that Harris entered his plea in exchange for a four year sentence, not a guidelines sentence. Moreover, as the court points out in its order, he does not seek to withdraw his plea.
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN, PLEUS and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.
NOTES
[1] Rule 3.850, Fla. R.Crim. Pro. (1999).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
810 So. 2d 1093, 2002 WL 440549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.