Hicks v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hicks v. State

112 So. 3d 567, 2013 WL 1440056, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5732

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 10, 2013

DocketNo. 4D12-2852

StatusPublished

This text of 112 So. 3d 567 (Hicks 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

Hicks v. State, 112 So. 3d 567, 2013 WL 1440056, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5732 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Hicks appeals the summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion. We reverse as to one issue raised in his motion.

In claims 6 and 7 of his rule 3.850 motion, Hicks complained that crimes he was not charged with in the information in this case were included on his Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet. The State pointed out that these charges were pending in a separate case. In its response below, the State suggested any scoresheet error was harmless because Hicks was sentenced as a habitual offender and prison releasee reoffender, which Hicks denies. Contrary to the State’s argument, the record shows he was sentenced under the Criminal Punishment Code, not a recidivist statute.

The scoresheet should not have included pending charges from a separate case which he had not been convicted of at the time of sentencing in this case. § 921.0021(1), Fla. Stat. (2009); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.704(d). Removing these offenses from his scoresheet would have reduced the lowest permissible sentence from 37.5 to 30.75 months. The record does not show that the court would have imposed the same sentence regardless of any scoresheet error. See Brooks v. State, 969 So.2d 238, 241-42 (Fla.2007) (recognizing that the “would have been imposed” test applies to scoresheet errors raised in a rule 3.850 motion).

On appeal, the State does not dispute that this claim is facially sufficient and not refuted by the attached records.

This case is reversed and remanded for further proceedings on this issue. The denial of the remaining claims is affirmed.

Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part and Remanded.

DAMOORGIAN, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Hicks appeals the summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion. We reverse as to one issue raised in his motion.

In claims 6 and 7 of his rule 3.850 motion, Hicks complained that crimes he was not charged with in the information in this case were included on his Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet. The State pointed out that these charges were pending in a separate case. In its response below, the State suggested any scoresheet error was harmless because Hicks was sentenced as a habitual offender and prison releasee reoffender, which Hicks denies. Contrary to the State’s argument, the record shows he was sentenced under the Criminal Punishment Code, not a recidivist statute.

The scoresheet should not have included pending charges from a separate case which he had not been convicted of at the time of sentencing in this case. § 921.0021(1), Fla. Stat. (2009); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.704(d). Removing these offenses from his scoresheet would have reduced the lowest permissible sentence from 37.5 to 30.75 months. The record does not show that the court would have imposed the same sentence regardless of any scoresheet error. See Brooks v. State, 969 So.2d 238, 241-42 (Fla.2007) (recognizing that the “would have been imposed” test applies to scoresheet errors raised in a rule 3.850 motion).

On appeal, the State does not dispute that this claim is facially sufficient and not refuted by the attached records.

This case is reversed and remanded for further proceedings on this issue. The denial of the remaining claims is affirmed.

Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part and Remanded.

DAMOORGIAN, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 So. 3d 567, 2013 WL 1440056, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicks-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack