Herrmann v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Herrmann v. State

768 So. 2d 511, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11178, 2000 WL 1234263

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 1, 2000

DocketNo. 2D00-1356

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 768 So. 2d 511 (Herrmann 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

Herrmann v. State, 768 So. 2d 511, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11178, 2000 WL 1234263 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Herrmann appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct a scoresheet error filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because Herrmann has stated a facially sufficient claim that is not refuted by the attachments to the trial court order, we reverse and remand for reconsideration.

[512]*512Herrmann alleges that a prior offense was erroneously scored as a level seven offense rather than a level six offense, thereby increasing his scoresheet total by five points. The trial court acknowledged that Herrmann’s sentencing scoresheet appeared to reflect the error identified by Herrmann. If Herrmann’s scoresheet was incorrect as identified by the trial court and his sentence was not negotiated as part of his plea agreement, Herrmann is entitled to be resentenced with a corrected scoresheet. See McPherson v. State, 750 So.2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

Reversed and remanded.

BLUE, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Herrmann appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct a scoresheet error filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because Herrmann has stated a facially sufficient claim that is not refuted by the attachments to the trial court order, we reverse and remand for reconsideration.

[512]*512Herrmann alleges that a prior offense was erroneously scored as a level seven offense rather than a level six offense, thereby increasing his scoresheet total by five points. The trial court acknowledged that Herrmann’s sentencing scoresheet appeared to reflect the error identified by Herrmann. If Herrmann’s scoresheet was incorrect as identified by the trial court and his sentence was not negotiated as part of his plea agreement, Herrmann is entitled to be resentenced with a corrected scoresheet. See McPherson v. State, 750 So.2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

Reversed and remanded.

BLUE, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

768 So. 2d 511, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11178, 2000 WL 1234263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herrmann-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack