Hopps v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hopps v. State

590 So. 2d 41, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12110, 1991 WL 256210

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 6, 1991

DocketNo. 90-03095

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 590 So. 2d 41 (Hopps 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

Hopps v. State, 590 So. 2d 41, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12110, 1991 WL 256210 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Walter Lee Hopps, challenges the judgments and sentences imposed upon him after he was found guilty of violating the terms and conditions of his probation. We find that the state presented sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the appellant violated his probation and, accordingly, affirm the order revoking his probation.

The trial court erred, however, by using a new scoresheet for the sentencing following revocation of his probation. Utilizing the new scoresheet resulted in longer sentences. The record does not reflect that the appellant affirmatively misrepresented his prior criminal history at the original sentencing hearing, and the court, accordingly, was bound to use the original score-sheet. Manuel v. State, 582 So.2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Goene v. State, 577 So.2d 1306 (Fla.1991). Furthermore, since the two scoresheets, which are part of the record in this case, establish sentencing errors which are apparent on the face of the record, the appellant did not waive his right to appeal the sentences. Forehand v. State, 537 So.2d 103 (Fla.1989); State v. Whitfield, 487 So.2d 1045 (Fla.1986).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and DANAHY and PARKER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Walter Lee Hopps, challenges the judgments and sentences imposed upon him after he was found guilty of violating the terms and conditions of his probation. We find that the state presented sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the appellant violated his probation and, accordingly, affirm the order revoking his probation.

The trial court erred, however, by using a new scoresheet for the sentencing following revocation of his probation. Utilizing the new scoresheet resulted in longer sentences. The record does not reflect that the appellant affirmatively misrepresented his prior criminal history at the original sentencing hearing, and the court, accordingly, was bound to use the original score-sheet. Manuel v. State, 582 So.2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Goene v. State, 577 So.2d 1306 (Fla.1991). Furthermore, since the two scoresheets, which are part of the record in this case, establish sentencing errors which are apparent on the face of the record, the appellant did not waive his right to appeal the sentences. Forehand v. State, 537 So.2d 103 (Fla.1989); State v. Whitfield, 487 So.2d 1045 (Fla.1986).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and DANAHY and PARKER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

590 So. 2d 41, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12110, 1991 WL 256210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopps-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack