Huggins v. State, 88-0500
| Decision Date | 25 January 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-0500,88-0500 |
| Citation | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 266,537 So.2d 207 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 266 James HUGGINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Carolyn V. McCann, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
In three separate cases appellant was charged with grand theft. He pled nolo contendere in each case and was placed on two years' community control in each, all three sentences to run concurrently. Affidavits were filed in each case charging violation of his community control, which appellant admitted. The scoresheet prepared reflected a presumptive guidelines sentence range of three and one-half to four and one-half years in prison, and the court sentenced appellant to four and one-half years in prison. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in scoring his guidelines scoresheet.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701 d. 3. provides that the "primary offense" is that which, when scored, recommends the most severe sanction. Since all three cases pending before the court were of the same degree, the sanction would be the same no matter which one was scored as the primary offense. Thus, to calculate the sentences for each case, it was only necessary to compute one of them on a scoresheet as the primary offense. However, the state concedes that the other two offenses of the same degree should have been counted as additional offenses rather than "prior record." Another scoring error involved adding six points for "legal status at time of offense." In fact, the three grand theft offenses were committed prior to appellant's being placed on concurrent community control sentences and, thus, no points for "prior restraint" were appropriate. Be that as it may, it is unnecessary to remand the matter for resentencing because a correction of these errors would not eliminate enough points to take appellant out of the same recommended range. Leopard v. State, 491 So.2d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Accordingly, the sentences appealed from are affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sellers v. State, 90-2367
...the same guidelines cell, the error is considered harmless. E.g., Guardado v. State, 562 So.2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Huggins v. State, 537 So.2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Cridland v. State, 522 So.2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). However, when the deletion of improperly included points in the gu......
-
Monzon v. State, 93-2143
...586 So.2d 340 (Fla.1991); Guardado v. State, 562 So.2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. den. 576 So.2d 287 (Fla.1990); Huggins v. State, 537 So.2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Kelly v. State, 546 So.2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Cridland v. State, 522 So.2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Leopard v. State, 49......
-
Kelly v. State, 87-02676
...range remains the same after the points for the grand theft offense are removed from the appellant's scoresheet. See Huggins v. State, 537 So.2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). We find no merit in the appellant's remaining contentions and, therefore, affirm the trial court in all other Affirmed in......
-
Peters v. State
...his 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. We affirm. In doing so, we recede from our prior decision in Huggins v. State, 537 So.2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), and adopt the reasoning of the Second District Court of Appeal in Doner v. State, 515 So.2d 1368 (Fla. 2d DCA The defendant p......