Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, an appellant challenged the summary denial of his motion to correct an alleged error in his sentencing scoresheet under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The appellant argued that his prior conviction was incorrectly scored, affecting his sentence range. He claimed that the error was apparent from the presentence investigation report in the court record. The trial court rejected this motion, aligning with Lomont v. State, which requires that errors must be evident on the face of the record to be corrected without an evidentiary hearing. However, the appellate court found this distinction critical, noting that the appellant's claim was facially sufficient since it was based on available record evidence, thus differing from Lomont. The appellate court referred to State v. Mancino and Atwood v. State, affirming that sentencing errors could be resolved by reviewing the entire record. Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded for further proceedings, with all judges concurring in the judgment.
Legal Issues Addressed
Correction of Illegal Sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court considered whether an alleged scoring error on a sentencing scoresheet could be corrected based on evidence in the court record without an evidentiary hearing.
Reasoning: McCullough asserted that this error could be identified through his presentence investigation report in the court record.
Facial Sufficiency of Claims for Sentence Correctionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court determined McCullough's claim was facially sufficient as it alleged the error could be corrected based on record evidence, distinguishing it from the precedent set in Lomont v. State.
Reasoning: The appellate court found McCullough's claim distinguishable from Lomont, determining it was facially sufficient because he affirmatively alleged that the error could be corrected based on record evidence.
Precedent for Correcting Sentencing Errorssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court cited State v. Mancino and Atwood v. State to support the potential for correcting sentencing errors through a review of the entire court record, not limited to errors apparent on the face of the record.
Reasoning: The court cited precedents, including State v. Mancino and Atwood v. State, which allowed for the possibility of resolving scoring errors through a review of the entire court record.