Spaulding v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Spaulding v. State

221 So. 3d 769, 2017 WL 2704501, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 9180, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1438

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 23, 2017

DocketCase 2D15-2681

StatusPublished

This text of 221 So. 3d 769 (Spaulding 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

Spaulding v. State, 221 So. 3d 769, 2017 WL 2704501, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 9180, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1438 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

SLEET, Judge.

Jason Mikel Spaulding challenges his judgment and sentence for grand theft of between $300 and' $5000 entered after the reVocation of the probation he was serving on the charge. While this appeal was pending, Spaulding filed a Florida Rulé' of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion alleging several scoresheet errors. We agree with the trial court that any scoresheet errors1 were harmless due to the fact that the record conclusively shows that the.trial court would have imposed' the samé sentence upon revocation of probation had the court had the benefit of a correct score-sheet. See Brooks v. State, 969 So.2d 238, 241 (Fla. 2007). Accordingly we affirm Spaulding’s judgment and sentence.

However, because the trial court definitely found error—albeit harmless error-—in the inclusion of -nineteen points for a prior Illinois offense and six community - sanction points, we remand for entry of a' corrected scoresheet omitting those twenty-five points. See State v. Anderson, 905 So.2d 111, 114 (Fla. 2005) (“Courts have developed a harmless error analysis to determine whether a scoresheet error must be merely corrected (harmless) or whether the error warrants both correction and resentencing (harmful).” (emphasis added)).

Affirmed; remanded.

KHOUZAM and BADALAMENTI, JJ„ Concur.- .

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

SLEET, Judge.

Jason Mikel Spaulding challenges his judgment and sentence for grand theft of between $300 and' $5000 entered after the reVocation of the probation he was serving on the charge. While this appeal was pending, Spaulding filed a Florida Rulé' of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion alleging several scoresheet errors. We agree with the trial court that any scoresheet errors1 were harmless due to the fact that the record conclusively shows that the.trial court would have imposed' the samé sentence upon revocation of probation had the court had the benefit of a correct score-sheet. See Brooks v. State, 969 So.2d 238, 241 (Fla. 2007). Accordingly we affirm Spaulding’s judgment and sentence.

However, because the trial court definitely found error—albeit harmless error-—in the inclusion of -nineteen points for a prior Illinois offense and six community - sanction points, we remand for entry of a' corrected scoresheet omitting those twenty-five points. See State v. Anderson, 905 So.2d 111, 114 (Fla. 2005) (“Courts have developed a harmless error analysis to determine whether a scoresheet error must be merely corrected (harmless) or whether the error warrants both correction and resentencing (harmful).” (emphasis added)).

Affirmed; remanded.

KHOUZAM and BADALAMENTI, JJ„ Concur.- .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 So. 3d 769, 2017 WL 2704501, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 9180, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spaulding-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack