Summary
In Barajas, the State agreed that Barajas was entitled to a new sentencing hearing with a corrected scoresheet because the record did not conclusively reflect whether the sentence imposed would be the same under the corrected scoresheet.
Summary of this case from Lahrizi v. StateOpinion
No. 4D06-3947.
February 13, 2008.
Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Dan Vaughn, Judge; L.T. Case No. 01-293 CF.
Jose Luis Barajas, Avon Park, pro se.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Don M. Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Jose Luis Barajas appeals the denial of his rule 3.850 motion. At a hearing on some of his claims, the state agreed with Barajas that his conviction for count V should be vacated based on a double jeopardy violation. The trial court accepted the concession and recognized that this would require a new sentencing hearing with a corrected scoresheet. The written order vacated the conviction and sentence on count V, but Barajas was not resentenced on the remaining charges. On appeal, the state agrees that resentencing is required. See State v. Anderson, 905 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2005) (holding that the proper test for determining whether resentencing is required as a result of a scoresheet error raised in a 3.850 motion is whether the record conclusively shows the same sentence would have been imposed with a correct scoresheet); Leyva v. State, 929 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court's order and remand for the court to resentence Barajas on the remaining charges with a corrected scoresheet.
We affirm the denial of Barajas' remaining claims.
STONE, FARMER and MAY, JJ., concur.