Ness v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ness v. State

708 So. 2d 654, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3431, 1998 WL 150763

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 3, 1998

DocketNo. 97-05271

StatusPublished

This text of 708 So. 2d 654 (Ness 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

Ness v. State, 708 So. 2d 654, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3431, 1998 WL 150763 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

William J. Ness challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Despite Ness’s able argument that his guidelines score is incorrect under Pollis v. State, 581 So.2d 991 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (holding convictions for crimes which are committed after the offense for which the defendant was being sentenced are improperly scored as prior record), this is not an issue which may be addressed in a motion to correct illegal sentence. See Lomont v. State, 506 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (holding defendant is precluded in post-conviction proceeding from challenging prior record as he must challenge guidelines score-sheet computations regarding prior record at sentencing and raise the issue on direct appeal unless the error is apparent from the face of the scoresheet). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s summary denial of relief.

Affirmed.

BLUE, AC.J., and "WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

William J. Ness challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Despite Ness’s able argument that his guidelines score is incorrect under Pollis v. State, 581 So.2d 991 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (holding convictions for crimes which are committed after the offense for which the defendant was being sentenced are improperly scored as prior record), this is not an issue which may be addressed in a motion to correct illegal sentence. See Lomont v. State, 506 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (holding defendant is precluded in post-conviction proceeding from challenging prior record as he must challenge guidelines score-sheet computations regarding prior record at sentencing and raise the issue on direct appeal unless the error is apparent from the face of the scoresheet). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s summary denial of relief.

Affirmed.

BLUE, AC.J., and "WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

708 So. 2d 654, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3431, 1998 WL 150763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ness-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack