Richie v. State, 99-01944.
| Decision Date | 15 December 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-01944.,99-01944. |
| Citation | 777 So.2d 977 |
| Parties | Walter L. RICHIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Walter L. Richie appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse as to two of his claims only. Richie pleaded guilty to multiple charges for which he scored a maximum of fourteen years and eleven months in prison. The court sentenced him to a downward departure sentence of fourteen years and eleven months in prison, with nine years and eleven months suspended to be served on a combination of community control and probation. Richie alleges that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to multiple scoresheet errors of which Richie apprised him and which would reduce his presumptive score by thirty-one months. Assuming that Richie is correct about the scoresheet errors, his sentence represents a downward departure from even the bottom of a properly prepared scoresheet.
Failure to object to scoresheet errors constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel and entitles a prisoner to postconviction relief if counsel failed to object to errors of which counsel knew or should have known and the inclusion of the erroneous points affected the sentence. See Manuel v. State, 629 So.2d 1052 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Thus, a defendant may be entitled to relief from a miscalculated scoresheet even where a downward departure sentence is imposed. See, e.g., Terrell v. State, 668 So.2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) ( for resentencing where the trial court believed that it was imposing a departure sentence but if prisoner's contentions of scoresheet error were correct, he actually received a guideline sentence).
In this case, the sentencing judge at the departure hearing asked what Richie scored before determining the downward departure sentence. The trial court then imposed the maximum guideline sentence and suspended a portion of it. Under these circumstances, Richie's sentence may have been affected by the additional thirty-one points which he alleges were erroneously included. Therefore, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing. If Richie's claims prove true, he shall be entitled to be resentenced based on a corrected scoresheet.
Richie also alleges that the trial court erred in imposing a public defender lien without advising him of his right to contest the amount of the lien. Such a claim is cognizable in a rule 3.850 proceeding. See Lewis v. State, 629 So.2d 1051 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). When a public defender lien is imposed, "[n]otice of the accused's right to a hearing to contest the amount of the lien shall be given at the time of the sentence." Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.720(d)(1). This court has repeatedly held that it is error to impose such a lien without giving the defendant the required notice. See, e.g., Basham v. State, 695 So.2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brannum, 5D03-1251.
...departure sentence requiring sufficient reasons for the departure); State v. Clay, 780 So.2d 269 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Richie v. State, 777 So.2d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (acknowledging that sentence within guideline range but with a portion suspended constituted a downward departure); State v......
-
Matton v. State, 2D02-906.
...counsel if counsel failed to object to errors of which counsel knew or should have known. Sommers, 796 So.2d at 610; Richie v. State, 777 So.2d 977, 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Because Matton's trial counsel failed to object to the possibly improper victim injury points, counsel's performance w......
-
Rodriguez v. State, 5D16–1539.
...of the accused's right to a hearing to contest the amount of the lien shall be given at the time of the sentence.’ ” Richie v. State, 777 So.2d 977, 978 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (alteration in original) (quoting Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.720(d)(1) ). “[I]t is error to impose such a lien without giving t......
-
Rankin v. State, 2D01-3990.
...this claim was insufficient because Rankin did not allege that counsel knew or should have known of the errors. See Richie v. State, 777 So.2d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order without prejudice to any right Rankin might have to file a facially sufficien......