Schneider v. State, 87-2025
| Decision Date | 11 September 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-2025,87-2025 |
| Citation | 512 So.2d 308,12 Fla. L. Weekly 2223 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2223 Frederick H. SCHNEIDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Frederick Schneider appeals from the summary denial of a motion to correct sentence. Because we are unable to conclude on the basis of the record before us that Schneider is not entitled to relief, we remand for further proceedings.
The sentences under attack total twenty-five years and were imposed in 1987 upon a finding that Schneider violated the terms and conditions of a 1983 probationary term. Schneider alleges that he requested sentencing under the guidelines at his 1987 hearing, and that the presumptive sentence was in the four-year range. He further states that the court imposed the present sentence although no scoresheet was prepared as required by the rule. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(1). The problem is compounded by the fact that, although Schneider's sentence most certainly represents an upward departure, the record as it has come to this court also reveals no written order stating reasons for departing from the guidelines.
We are of the opinion that in at least some cases the total absence of a sentencing guidelines scoresheet could present the sort of error cognizable either on direct appeal or by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) as amended in State v. Whitfield, 487 So.2d 1045 (Fla.1986). Just as with an incorrect scoresheet, the trial court cannot know the proper sentence to impose, whether to depart, or to what extent to depart, if it has not first calculated the recommended guideline sentence. See, e.g., Brown v. State, 508 So.2d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We recognize that the absence of a scoresheet does not render a sentence invalid in all cases. Rowe v. State, 496 So.2d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Davis v. State, 461 So.2d 1361 (Fla. 2d DCA), petition for review denied, 471 So.2d 43 (Fla.1985). However, given the record before us it is not possible to state whether one of these exceptions applies to Schneider's case.
After remand the trial court should first determine whether Schneider's allegations are true. If he is incorrect and there actually was a scoresheet, the attachment of such a document to the court's order should support denial of the motion. If, on the other hand, no scoresheet was prepared the court must then determine whether the files and records in the case support a finding that this omission did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
...3d DCA 1987); Orsi v. State, 515 So.2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Dupont v. State, 514 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Schneider v. State, 512 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Brown v. State, 510 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Brown v. State, 508 So.2d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Roberts v. State, 50......
-
Dupont v. State
...for assault with intent to commit robbery was erroneously scored as a "prior Category 3 [robbery] offense." And, in Schneider v. State, 512 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), this court recently held that the absence of a scoresheet, insofar as that could contribute to an inability to determine ......
-
Clifton v. State, 89-02149
...and remand for the preparation of a proper scoresheet and a new sentence in accordance with that scoresheet. See Schneider v. State, 512 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Doby v. State, 461 So.2d 1360 (Fla. 2d DCA Reversed and remanded with instructions. CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., co......
-
Parks v. State, 97-821
...scoresheet is a valid ground for relief under Rule 3.800(a). See White v. State, 600 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Schneider v. State, 512 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). White and Schneider pre-date the decisions in Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193 (Fla.1995); and State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d......