MICHAEL ARMAND DELORME v. STATE OF FLORIDA ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •        DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
    FOURTH DISTRICT
    MICHAEL ARMAND DELORME,
    Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    No. 4D19-1510
    [March 4, 2020]
    Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.
    Lucie County; Gary L. Sweet, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562011CF000962 A.
    Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public
    Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney,
    Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
    ON CONFESSION OF ERROR
    CONNER, J.
    Appellant, Michael Armand Delorme, appeals the denial of his motion
    to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
    3.800(b)(2). In the motion, Appellant argued that he was sentenced on a
    violation of probation based on an incorrect scoresheet. Specifically, he
    alleged that there were seventeen counts of third-degree grand theft
    erroneously listed on the scoresheet as “additional offense(s).” The State
    agrees that the trial court erred. Because Appellant completed his
    sentences for those seventeen counts of third-degree grand theft prior to
    the time he violated his probation, and therefore, those counts were not
    “pending before the court for sentencing at the time of the primary
    offense,” we agree the scoresheet was scored improperly. See §
    921.0021(1), Fla. Stat. (2011) (defining “[a]dditional offense” as “any
    offense other than the primary offense for which an offender is convicted
    and which is pending before the court for sentencing at the time of the
    primary offense” (emphasis added)); see also Sanders v. State, 
    35 So. 3d 864
    , 866 (Fla. 2010) (“Offenses over which the trial court no longer has
    jurisdiction cannot be scored as additional offenses during a sentencing
    proceeding following a violation of probation because they do not fit the
    definition of ‘additional offense’ set out in section 921.0021, Florida
    Statutes (1999).”); Somps v. State, 
    183 So. 3d 1090
    , 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA
    2015) (“An offense should not be scored as an additional offense following
    the revocation of a defendant’s probation if the defendant completed his
    sentence as to that offense before the VOP occurred.”). Accordingly, we
    reverse and remand for resentencing.
    Reverse and remand for resentencing.
    MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
    *        *        *
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-1510

Filed Date: 3/4/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/4/2020