McClain v. State
Decision Date | 16 February 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 1D14–3066.,1D14–3066. |
Citation | 157 So.3d 528 |
Parties | Corey McCLAIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Corey McClain, pro se, Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Charles R. McCoy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Corey McClain appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that a scoresheet error caused his sentence to exceed the maximum that could have been imposed with a corrected scoresheet. To support his claim, he provided the trial court with portions of the record in a different criminal case to establish that a prior conviction listed on his guidelines scoresheet was erroneously classified as a higher level offense, resulting in an increase in his maximum sentence exposure. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that a claim of scoresheet miscalculation is not cognizable in a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) if the error is not apparent from the face of the scoresheet. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the trial court should have dismissed Appellant's motion as facially insufficient, rather than deny it on its merits.
Contrary to the trial court's position, a claim that a sentencing scoresheet was incorrectly calculated may be raised at any time pursuant to Rule 3.800(a) as long as the error is apparent on the face of the record. See Atwood v. State, 765 So.2d 242, 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) () (quoting Johnson v. State, 702 So.2d 247, 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) ); Lewis v. State, 719 So.2d 924, 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) ( ); but see Hernandez v. State, 698 So.2d 906, 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) () (quoting Judge v. State, 596 So.2d 73, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) ). Accordingly, under our precedent, the trial court should not have denied Appellant's motion for the reason that the alleged scoresheet error was not apparent on the face of the scoresheet alone.
Nevertheless, Appellant's motion was facially insufficient because it failed to affirmatively allege that the court records of the proceedings in which the challenged sentence was imposed demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief. See Tyson v. State, 852 So.2d 428, 429 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ( )(quoting Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) ); cf. McCullough v. State, 777 So.2d 1091, 1091–92 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) ( ). Appellant's exclusive reliance on record excerpts from a different criminal case to substantiate his claim of scoresheet error renders his claim beyond the scope of sentencing errors correctable...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cox v. State
...of the record. Williams v. State , 957 So.2d 600 (Fla. 2007) ; Porkolab v. State , 187 So.3d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ; McClain v. State , 157 So.3d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) ; Casteel v. State , 141 So.3d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) ; Smart v. State , 124 So.3d 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ; Jarrett v. ......
-
McNair v. State, Case No. 5D17–3453
...to relief, it was and remains [McNair's] burden—not the trial court's—to specifically identify those records." McClain v. State, 157 So.3d 528, 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (citing Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045, 1050 (Fla. 2011) ("Under rule 3.800(a), 'the burden [is on] the petitioner to demo......
-
McNair v. State
...to relief, it was and remains [McNair's] burden — not the trial court's — to specifically identify those records." McClain v. State , 157 So.3d 528, 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (citing Johnson v. State , 60 So.3d 1045, 1050 (Fla. 2011) ("Under rule 3.800(a), ‘the burden [is on] the petitioner t......