Moore v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moore v. State

840 So. 2d 274, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 222, 2003 WL 118503

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 15, 2003

DocketNo. 3D02-2734

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 840 So. 2d 274 (Moore 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

Moore v. State, 840 So. 2d 274, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 222, 2003 WL 118503 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence imposed after the revocation of the appellant’s probation. The state commendably and correctly concedes that not only was the sentencing guideline scoresheet incorrectly calculated, but there are a host of other errors which are apparent from the face of the record such as the miseharac-terizations of the degrees of the various felonies committed by the appellant and, the omission of some of the appellant’s prior convictions. Moreover, as a result of the miscalculations in the scoresheet, it appears that the trial court imposed a departure sentence for which no reasons were given, without being aware that it was doing so.

For these reasons, we therefore reverse and remand for a resentencing hearing. Since the trial court believed that the sentence imposed was within the guidelines and did not consider whether a departure sentence was warranted, upon remand, we agree with the state that the trial court is not precluded from considering whether a departure sentence is warranted. See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla.1989).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence imposed after the revocation of the appellant’s probation. The state commendably and correctly concedes that not only was the sentencing guideline scoresheet incorrectly calculated, but there are a host of other errors which are apparent from the face of the record such as the miseharac-terizations of the degrees of the various felonies committed by the appellant and, the omission of some of the appellant’s prior convictions. Moreover, as a result of the miscalculations in the scoresheet, it appears that the trial court imposed a departure sentence for which no reasons were given, without being aware that it was doing so.

For these reasons, we therefore reverse and remand for a resentencing hearing. Since the trial court believed that the sentence imposed was within the guidelines and did not consider whether a departure sentence was warranted, upon remand, we agree with the state that the trial court is not precluded from considering whether a departure sentence is warranted. See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla.1989).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

840 So. 2d 274, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 222, 2003 WL 118503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack