Tosco v. State, 98-1847
| Decision Date | 30 December 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-1847,98-1847 |
| Citation | 724 So.2d 1223 |
| Parties | Eduardo TOSCO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Eduardo Tosco, in proper person.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before JORGENSON, GERSTEN and SHEVIN, JJ.
Eduardo Tosco appeals the denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct a scoresheet error. The state concedes that upon Tosco's revocation of probation, the scoresheet incorrectly reflected that the primary offense was a first degree felony rather than a second degree felony. A corrected scoresheet would have resulted in the lower recommended range of 12 to 17 years, and a permitted range of 9 to 22 years. It appears that the court denied Tosco's motion based on the mistaken assumption that this issue was not cognizable by way of a 3.800(a) motion. "Rule 3.800(a) still allows a court to correct `an incorrect calculation made by it in a sentencing guidelines scoresheet' at any time...." Johnson v. State, 702 So.2d 247, 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (citing Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a)). "Because the erroneous scoresheet calculation herein is apparent on the face of the record, it is reviewable under a rule 3.800 motion." Glanton v. State, 705 So.2d 945, 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
Based on this reasoning, we reverse the order and remand for reconsideration of the motion on the merits.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Reardon
-
Shaw v. State, 2D00-2955.
...not sufficiently identify any scoresheet errors and no errors are apparent from our review of the scoresheet. See Tosco v. State, 724 So.2d 1223, 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Romano v. State, 718 So.2d 283, 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Judge v. State, 596 So.2d 73, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Polmanteer......
- Duhart v. State