Olsen v. State
| Decision Date | 01 August 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D00-3593.,2D00-3593. |
| Citation | 791 So.2d 558 |
| Parties | Christopher OLSEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Megan Olson, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Dale E. Tarpley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Christopher Olsen challenges the circuit court order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion without a hearing, arguing that the trial court did not use a properly prepared 1994 guidelines scoresheet. We agree and reverse.
Olsen was convicted of nineteen counts, including first-degree murder and burglary of a dwelling while committing armed battery with a dangerous weapon. Olsen's offenses occurred between May 17-20, 1996, within the Heggs window.1 The trial court originally sentenced Olsen to life on the first-degree murder charge and gave him habitual offender sentences for the burglary conviction and two other offenses. The trial court erroneously included these habitualized offenses on Olsen's 1995 guidelines scoresheet.
On direct appeal, Olsen did not raise any sentencing issues, but rather challenged the convictions by a sufficiency of the evidence argument. Finding merit in Olsen's claims, this court reversed the burglary conviction, reduced the first-degree murder conviction to second-degree murder, and remanded "for resentencing consistent with the findings herein." Olsen v. State, 751 So.2d 108, 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
At the resentencing hearing, Olsen argued that he was entitled to be re-sentenced on all the charges. First, he alleged that, pursuant to Heggs, a 1994 guidelines scoresheet should be prepared to replace the previously utilized 1995 scoresheet. Additionally, Olsen argued that the prior imposition of a habitual offender sentence for the attempted seconddegree murder and aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer charges should be reconsidered.
The State maintained that the only offense before the trial court for resentencing was the second-degree murder. The State further argued that even if a 1994 scoresheet was prepared and all the offenses including the second-degree murder were scored, the resulting guidelines sentence would be longer than that originally imposed and, thus, Olsen was not entitled to Heggs relief. Further, the State argued that since Olsen received a habitual offender sentence originally on counts eleven and seventeen, he was not entitled to relief under Heggs because he was not sentenced under the guidelines. The trial court agreed and sentenced Olsen to life imprisonment as a habitual offender for the second-degree murder, leaving the remainder of Olsen's original sentence as previously imposed.
Olsen then filed a 3.800(a) motion to correct sentencing errors, arguing that utilization of a 1994 guidelines scoresheet was required for the offenses for which a habitual offender sentence was not imposed, and that the new scoresheet should not include the offenses for which Olsen was habitualized. The trial court summarily denied the motion as a matter of law. This was error.
As part of the original sentencing scheme, Olsen received guidelines sentences on eight separate counts.2 As to these counts, Olsen is entitled to the relief available pursuant to Heggs. See Pitts v. State, 771 So.2d 1259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
.
Additionally, the 1995 scoresheet that was used at the original sentencing included the attempted second-degree murder charge as the primary offense and the aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer charge as an additional offense. This was improper because Olsen was sentenced as a habitual offender on each of these counts. "When a defendant is being sentenced as a habitual offender for some cases and under the guidelines for other cases at the same hearing, it is improper to score the crimes for which he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Champagne v. State
...guidelines will continue as precedent unless in conflict with the provisions of this rule or the 1998 [CPC]."); Olsen v. State, 791 So.2d 558, 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (restating that it is improper to include habitualized offenses on a scoresheet); Sheffield v. State, 214 So.3d 763, 764 (Fla......
-
Sheffield v. State, CASE NO. 1D16–1319
...and cannot include that offense either as a primary or additional offense on the guidelines scoresheet. See Olsen v. State , 791 So.2d 558, 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) ; Drayton v. State , 744 So.2d 584, 585–86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ; Alexander v. State , 680 So.2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) ; Byrd v.......
-
Rivers v. State
...the counts in case number 03-3153 for which Rivers had been sentenced as a habitual felony offender and we agree. Olsen v. State, 791 So.2d 558, 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Drayton v. State, 744 So.2d 584, 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Perez v. State, 703 So.2d 1131, 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). However,......
- McCarter v. State, 2D99-3001.