Opinion
No. 2D21-333
02-11-2022
Ronald HARTSHORN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Ronald Hartshorn, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and William C. Shelhart, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Ronald Hartshorn, pro se.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and William C. Shelhart, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
STARGEL, Judge.
Ronald Hartshorn appeals the order denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) seeking resentencing under a corrected scoresheet. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Hartshorn pleaded guilty to burglary of a structure and grand theft, and the trial court sentenced him to sixty-four months' imprisonment. He did not file a direct appeal, but less than a year after his judgment and sentence became final, he filed a sworn rule 3.800(a) motion alleging that his plea agreement called for the lowest permissible sentence under a correctly calculated scoresheet. He argued that the State, the court, and counsel incorrectly calculated his scoresheet, resulting in a longer sentence—sixty-four months—than would have been imposed under a correctly calculated scoresheet—51.15 months.
The postconviction court ordered the State to respond. The State agreed that the scoresheet was incorrectly calculated and that a correctly calculated scoresheet resulted in the lowest permissible sentence of 51.15 months. But the State argued that Hartshorn was not entitled to resentencing because he entered a plea to a sixty-four-month sentence which was greater than the previously calculated lowest permissible sentence of 63.9 months. In denying Hartshorn's motion, the postconviction court found that he was not entitled to relief under rule 3.800(a) because nothing on the plea form indicated that Hartshorn pleaded to a minimum guidelines sentence rather than to a term of months. The court did not consider Hartshorn's motion under rule 3.850. Because Hartshorn's motion was timely under rule 3.850 and was under oath as required by that rule, the postconviction court should have treated it as filed under rule 3.850. See Brooks v. State , 969 So. 2d 238, 243 n.8 (Fla. 2007) (holding that when a rule 3.800(a) motion is filed within the time afforded by rule 3.850(b), "the court should treat a motion alleging scoresheet error as one filed under rule 3.850 and apply the would-have-been-imposed standard [of review]").
Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court's order and remand with instructions to treat Hartshorn's motion as filed under rule 3.850 and either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting Hartshorn's claim or hold an evidentiary hearing.
Reversed and remanded.
KHOUZAM and SLEET, JJ., Concur.