Martinez v. State
Decision Date | 18 October 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 4D00-2083.,4D00-2083. |
Parties | Marty MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Marty Martinez, South Bay, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Claudine M. LaFrance, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Marty Martinez (Appellant) appeals from the order summarily denying his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, in which he sought resentencing under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), for one count of aggravated battery, committed on November 23, 1995. We reverse.
It is undisputed that Appellant's offense was committed within the window period for raising a Heggs challenge. See Trapp v. State, 760 So.2d 924 (Fla.2000)
(. ) The state's response below argued that the motion should be denied because Appellant's fifty-two month sentence fell within the sentencing range produced by the recalculated guidelines scoresheet, attaching Appellant's actual 1995 guidelines scoresheet, and a recalculated 1994 scoresheet showing 70 total sentence points, for a presumptive sentence of 42 months, with a sentencing range of 31.5 to 52.5 months. Because Appellant's sentence of fifty-two months was within that range, the trial court denied relief. See Heggs, 759 So.2d at 627 ().
On appeal, Appellant argues— and it is obvious from comparing the two scoresheets—that the state added four points for "legal status violation" on page 2 of the proposed 1994 scoresheet which did not appear on the 1995 scoresheet on which Appellant's sentencing was based. If those four points had not been added, Appellant's total sentence points on the 1994 scoresheet would have been 66, his presumptive sentence would have been 38 months, and his sentencing range would have been 28.5 months to 47.5 months. His actual sentence of 52 months exceeds that range and would bring him within the class of persons who should be resentenced under Heggs.
In response to this court's order to show cause, the state filed portions of the record indicating that after entering his nolo contendere plea to the instant offense, Appellant was placed on community control; his violation of that community control resulted in the fifty-two month sentence which Appellant now challenges. Therefore, because Appellant was on community control at the time he received the sentence on revocation of community control, the state argues, it was proper to correct the original scoresheet to include points for legal constraint.
We agree that it is proper to correct the original scoresheet when determining whether a defendant should be resentenced under Heggs. See, e.g., Merkt v. State, 764 So.2d 865 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
(. ) In doing so, however, the state should be careful to point out to the trial court that it is doing so and seek its approval. See Erickson v. State, 565 So.2d 328, 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (), rev. denied, 576 So.2d 286 (Fla.1991).
In this case, the trial court should have disapproved the correction, if all the state could show was that Appellant was under a legal constraint when his community control was revoked. See Williams v. State, 678 So.2d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
; Taylor v. State, 485 So.2d 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Burkhalter v. State, 578 So.2d 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). As this court explained in Taylor, "When a defendant is being sentenced in a probation revocation hearing only for the original crime, case law provides that points may only be added if the defendant is under legal constraint at the time he committed the offense, not at the time probation was revoked." 485 So.2d at 901. On the other hand, "[i]f the defendant is being sentenced for an additional crime at the revocation hearing, then it is proper to find that the defendant was under legal constraint and add points." See Id. Here,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ash v. State, 2D98-2166.
...total of 317. This scoresheet is incorrect because it erroneously scores 30 points for "legal constraint." See Martinez v. State, 770 So.2d 211, 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) ("`When a defendant is being sentenced in a probation revocation hearing only for the original crime, case law provides th......
-
Terry v. State
...claims that the points for legal restraint—which were not on the original 1996 scoresheet—were improper. He cites Martinez v. State, 770 So.2d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), which holds that legal constraint points may only be included on a sentencing scoresheet at the violation of supervision st......
-
Estrada v. State
...a defendant is entitled to resentencing under Heggs, the State must explicitly advise the trial court when it does so. Martinez v. State, 770 So.2d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). The court must then afford the defendant an opportunity to respond to and to contest any corrections. Id. In these sit......
- Florida Tower Condominium, Inc. v. Mindes