From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Horton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jul 2, 1997
696 So. 2d 460 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

Summary

In Horton v. State, 696 So.2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), this court held that rule 3.800(a) affords relief only in the case of sentences that exceed the statutory maximum, and where there are scoresheet errors apparent on the face of the record.

Summary of this case from Roy v. State

Opinion

Case No. 96-4793

Opinion filed July 2, 1997.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County. Don T. Sirmons, Judge.

David L. Horton, pro se, appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Trisha E. Meggs, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee.


David L. Horton filed a motion to correct illegal sentence, contending that his guidelines scoresheet was improper in two respects. First, he claimed that certain misdemeanor prior offenses were uncounseled and should not have been scored. Second, he claimed that certain additional offenses for which he was habitualized were also included on the scoresheet. The trial court denied relief, finding that appellant did not claim his sentences exceeded the statutory maximum and therefore relief was barred under Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193 (Fla. 1995).

In addition to challenging a sentence which exceeds the statutory maximum, rule 3.800(a) is available to assert claims that a sentencing guidelines scoresheet was improperly scored.Baldwin v. State, 679 So.2d 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Such claims are limited to those which are apparent from the face of the record. Id. In the instant case, we find that factual determinations outside the record would be necessary to determine whether the prior misdemeanors were uncounseled. These claims therefore are procedurally barred. The second claim, relating to habitualized additional offenses, should be apparent from the face of the record and, if true, may entitle the appellant to some relief. Eblin v. State, 677 So.2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We therefore affirm in part and reverse and remand in part for further proceedings on appellant's claim relating to improper inclusion of habitualized offenses as "additional offenses" on the guidelines scoresheet.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED.

ALLEN, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., CONCUR.


Summaries of

Horton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jul 2, 1997
696 So. 2d 460 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

In Horton v. State, 696 So.2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), this court held that rule 3.800(a) affords relief only in the case of sentences that exceed the statutory maximum, and where there are scoresheet errors apparent on the face of the record.

Summary of this case from Roy v. State
Case details for

Horton v. State

Case Details

Full title:DAVID L. HORTON, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Jul 2, 1997

Citations

696 So. 2d 460 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

Citing Cases

Atwood v. State

" Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(a); see Orosco v. State, 730 So.2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). "If an erroneous scoresheet…

W.P. v. State

Affirmed. See B.H. v. State, 645 So.2d 987 (Fla.1994) ; Register v. State, 619 So.2d 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) ;…