MELODY SARA HARMON v. STATE OF FLORIDA ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •        DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
    FOURTH DISTRICT
    MELODY SARA HARMON,
    Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1295
    [November 13, 2019]
    Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
    Beach County; John S. Kastrenakes, Judge; L.T. Case Nos.
    2015CF000842AMB,        2015CF000845AMB,           2015CF000849AMB,
    2015CF000851AMB, 2015C000853AMB, 2015CF002134BMB and
    2015CF008924AMB.
    Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Erika Follmer, Assistant
    Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph D. Coronato,
    Jr., Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
    CONNER, J.
    Melody Sara Harmon appeals her sentence after the trial court found
    that she willfully and substantially violated probation. Harmon was on
    probation in seven cases for twelve offenses. On appeal, Harmon raises
    three arguments asserting sentencing errors. We affirm the trial court’s
    ruling as to all three issues raised, but remand the case for the trial court
    to correct the scoresheet submitted for sentencing consideration.
    Harmon contends the scoresheet reviewed by the trial court listed three
    prior misdemeanor convictions for possession of drug paraphernalia, but
    she has only two prior convictions for that offense. Harmon preserved the
    scoresheet error issue by filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of
    Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) in the trial court, which was denied. See
    Jackson v. State, 
    983 So. 2d 562
    , 572 (Fla. 2008) (listing inaccurate
    scoresheets as a type of “sentencing error” that can be preserved under
    rule 3.800(b)).
    The State does not dispute Harmon’s contention that there was an error
    on the scoresheet that listed three convictions for paraphernalia offenses.
    However, when the trial court addressed that contention in ruling on the
    rule 3.800(b) motion, it concluded that the point difference for two, instead
    of three, convictions of paraphernalia offenses was de minimis. We
    conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion or err in sentencing,
    despite the scoresheet error, particularly where the trial court sentenced
    Harmon to almost two years more than the minimum sentence if a correct
    scoresheet had been used. Notably, the extra .2 points for a third
    conviction changed the minimum recommended sentence from 49.73
    months’ imprisonment to 49.58 months’ imprisonment.
    “When a scoresheet error is raised on direct appeal via a rule 3.800(b)
    motion, courts must apply the ‘would-have-been-imposed’ test to
    determine whether a scoresheet error warrants resentencing.” Ray v.
    State, 
    987 So. 2d 155
    , 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). “Under the ‘would-have-
    been-imposed’ test, scoresheet error is considered harmless if the record
    conclusively shows that the trial court would have imposed the same
    sentence using a correct scoresheet.” 
    Id. However, the
    trial court should have granted Harmon’s rule 3.800(b)
    motion in part by correcting the scoresheet error. See Naugle v. State, 
    244 So. 3d 1127
    , 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (explaining that the proper course
    of action, when a rule 3.800(b) establishes a scoresheet error that would
    have resulted in the same sentence, is for the trial court to grant the
    motion for the sole purpose of correcting the scoresheet); Henion v. State,
    
    247 So. 3d 537
    , 538 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (determining that a .2 point error
    on the scoresheet was harmless error but remanding for the trial court to
    enter a properly calculated scoresheet). Similar to our dispositions in
    Naugle and Henion, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court on
    all issues raised, but remand for the trial court to correct the scoresheet.
    Harmon need not be present for the ministerial act of correcting the
    scoresheet on remand. 
    Naugle, 244 So. 3d at 1128
    ; 
    Henion, 247 So. 3d at 538
    .
    Affirmed; remanded for correction of scoresheet only.
    KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
    *        *         *
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-1295

Filed Date: 11/13/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/13/2019