Paul v. State
This text of 735 So. 2d 572 (Paul 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.
Opinion
As the state correctly asserts, because the trial judge was aware of the recommended sentencing guidelines and the sentences imposed for the appellant’s non-capital offenses did not exceed the recommended guidelines, the court’s failure to use a scoresheet did not constitute reversible error. See Stokes v. State, 476 So.2d 313, 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The court’s failure to use a scoresheet in this case was [573]*573harmless — at best. See Hamilton v. State, 537 So.2d 194, 194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Williams v. State, 529 So.2d 366, 367 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We therefore affirm the order denying the appellant’s motion made pursuant to rule 3.800, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
735 So. 2d 572, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 7894, 1999 WL 391891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.