Harrell v. State

Topics

Practice areas

Questions Presented

1. Whether a claim of scoresheet error is cognizable in a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion.
2. Whether the alleged scoresheet error was harmless when correcting the error would reduce the appellant's scoresheet and maximum sentence below the sentence imposed.
3. Whether the trial court properly denied the appellant's remaining postconviction claims.

Holdings

1. A claim alleging scoresheet error is cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and the trial court improperly dismissed the claim on the ground that trial court error is not cognizable in a postconviction motion.
2. The scoresheet error could not be considered harmless because correcting the error would result in a maximum sentence lower than the sentence actually imposed.
3. The denial of the appellant's remaining postconviction claims was affirmed.

Factual background

The appellant was serving a seven-year sentence based on a scoresheet that treated a conviction in Case Number 90-4820 as a second-degree felony. At the evidentiary hearing, the State introduced a certified judgment showing that the conviction was for a third-degree felony, which would reduce the scoresheet by 11.6 points. The resulting corrected maximum sentence would be less than the sentence actually imposed.

Procedural history

The trial court denied the appellant's Rule 3.850 motion after an evidentiary hearing and dismissed the claim alleging scoresheet error on the ground that trial court error was not cognizable in a postconviction motion. The First District reversed that dismissal, affirmed the denial of the remaining claims, and remanded for recalculation of the scoresheet and resentencing within the guidelines.

Remand instructions

The trial court must properly calculate the appellant's scoresheet and impose a sentence within the guidelines.