From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Val v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Sep 22, 1999
741 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Summary

reversing on direct appeal for resentencing because the district court could not "conclude with certainty that appellant's sentence would have been the same if the trial court had used a properly prepared scoresheet"

Summary of this case from Brooks v. State

Opinion

No. 98-0880.

Opinion filed September 22, 1999.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Marc H. Gold, Judge; L.T. Case No. 96-002249CF10A.

Raag Singhal of The Law Offices of Kaplan Singhal, P.A., Special Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.


Appellant, Lines Val, appeals his sentence, alleging that he was sentenced pursuant to an erroneously prepared scoresheet. Appellee concedes, and we agree, that under White v. State, 714 So.2d 440 (Fla. 1998), it was error to include an additional 18 points for use of a firearm because a three-year mandatory minimum was already required for the attempted murder with a firearm count.

Appellee urges, however, that the error is harmless since the sentence imposed falls within the recommended range. Thus, there is no need to remand for resentencing. As we concluded inSmith v. State, 685 So.2d 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), although the sentence imposed in this case falls within the permitted range of a properly prepared scoresheet, we cannot conclude with certainty that appellant's sentence would have been the same if the trial court had used a properly prepared scoresheet. See also Shabazz v. State, 674 So.2d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Accordingly, we remand for resentencing based on a properly prepared scoresheet.

POLEN, J., and GLICKSTEIN, HUGH S., Senior Judge, concur.


Summaries of

Val v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Sep 22, 1999
741 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

reversing on direct appeal for resentencing because the district court could not "conclude with certainty that appellant's sentence would have been the same if the trial court had used a properly prepared scoresheet"

Summary of this case from Brooks v. State

reversing for resentencing because the court could not "conclude with certainty that appellant's sentence would have been the same if the trial court had used a properly prepared scoresheet"

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

Val v. State

Case Details

Full title:LINES VAL, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Sep 22, 1999

Citations

741 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Citing Cases

State v. Anderson

Most courts use the would-have-been-imposed harmless error test on direct appeal from a sentence. See, e.g.,…

Reyna v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.

Petitioner did not assert in his appeal brief that his sentence was incorrectly calculated; rather, he argued…