McClendon v. State

709 So. 2d 183, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3639, 1998 WL 158898
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in McClendon v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 765 So. 2d 247
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 8, 1998·No. No. 97-4537·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of appellant’s motion to correct his illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), claiming incorrect calculations on the sentencing scoresheet. In his first point, he alleges that his sentence for robbery was scored at ninety-eight points because of a firearm, rather than robbery without a firearm. Although appellant is correct that the reference to a firearm was deleted in the final judgment, the sentence scoresheet would have been the same if the robbery had been committed with a deadly weapon. Thus, there does not appear to be any calculation error. To the extent that appellant’s claim turns on an evidentiary dispute, it is not cognizable under a rule 3.800 motion.

Appellant also argues that his scoresheet improperly included seventeen points for “legal constraint.” The state concedes this point, but we agree with the state’s contention that any error is harmless as the points would have changed neither the recommended nor the permitted ranges for appellant’s sentence. See Sellers v. State, 578 So.2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA), approved, 586 So.2d 340 (Fla.1991).

GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

McClendon v. State, 709 So. 2d 183, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3639, 1998 WL 158898 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

709 So. 2d 183 (McClendon v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sellers v. State
578 So. 2d 339 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
State v. Sellers
586 So. 2d 340 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1991)