Hembree v. State, 86-2137
| Decision Date | 12 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-2137,86-2137 |
| Citation | 519 So.2d 1138,13 Fla. L. Weekly 440 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 440 Raymond Earl HEMBREE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Stephen Krosschell, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joseph R. Bryant, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
The appellant, Raymond Earl Hembree, challenges the judgments and sentences imposed upon him after he was found guilty of grand theft and fleeing a police officer. We find no error in connection with the appellant's convictions and, accordingly, affirm the judgments. We find, however, that the appellant's sentences were based upon an inaccurate guidelines scoresheet. We, therefore, reverse the sentences and remand for resentencing.
After a jury found the appellant guilty of grand theft and fleeing a police officer, the trial court adjudicated him guilty of those charges. At the appellant's sentencing hearing, a scoresheet reflecting ninety-three points and a presumptive guidelines sentencing range of four and one-half to five and one-half years imprisonment was presented to the court. When the appellant objected to the scoresheet, the trial court amended it to reflect a total of seventy-six points and a presumptive guidelines sentencing range of three and one-half to four and one-half years of imprisonment. The trial court subsequently sentenced the appellant to a four and one-half year term of imprisonment on the grand theft charge, and to a concurrent one year term of imprisonment on the fleeing a police officer charge. This timely appeal followed.
Since the amended scoresheet reflects an apparent error on its face, the appellant's failure to object after the scoresheet was amended does not foreclose his right to appeal. See Dailey v. State, 488 So.2d 532 (Fla.1986). The appellant was sentenced for a category six offense. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(c). His scoresheet, therefore, was required to reflect five additional points for each prior category six felony conviction, in addition to points for his prior record in general. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(15). The amended scoresheet contains twenty points for four prior category six offenses. In listing the appellant's prior record, however, the scoresheet reflects only three prior felony convictions. Assuming that the three prior felony convictions were all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Erickson v. State
...4th DCA 1988). See Ratushinak v. State, 517 So.2d 749, 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 525 So.2d 880 (1988); Hembree v. State, 519 So.2d 1138, 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). This requirement applies even if the trial court expresses an intention to impose the maximum statutory sentence at t......
-
Forehand v. State, BT-110
...failure to make findings of fact before sentencing defendant as a habitual offender was apparent from the record); Hembree v. State, 519 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (scoresheet contained an obvious error where one portion of scoresheet contained a reference to four prior felony conviction......
-
Ledesma v. State, 4D05-2238.
...that scoring is limited to prior offenses "included within the category." Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.701(d)(15). See also Hembree v. State, 519 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Wilson v. State, 514 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Bordeaux v. State, 471 So.2d 1353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (applying this rul......
-
Fernandez v. State, 95-837
...the record is insufficient to support the defendant's sentence. Roberson v. State, 555 So.2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Hembree v. State, 519 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We therefore vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing upon a proper Reversed and re......