Brown v. StateBrown v. State
Herman Brown appeals from an order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed with the trial court pursuant to Rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We reverse because of the particularly unique circumstances before us.
Brown maintains that his sentencing guideline scoresheet reflected 24 points for “victim injury” notwithstanding that such injury was not an element of any of the offenses for which he was convicted, i.e., robbery, kidnapping, grand theft and burglary.1 If Brown‘s contention is factually correct, adding 24 points to the scoresheet was improper. Toney v. State, 456 So.2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Thus, Brown claims that the deletion of the extra points results in a reduction in the range of the presumptive sentence. It is our view that Brown‘s motion generates a question of law which may be raised at any time free from a requirement that the error be preserved by a contemporaneous objection or presented in an appeal.
The trial court did not impose a presumptive sentence upon Brown; instead it departed upward.3 If his present challenge to the sentence were urged on appeal, and were supported by the record, we would be compelled to reverse in the absence of evidence disclosing beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court would have departed to the extent it did notwithstanding that the presumptive sentence was less than that indicated by the scoresheet. Parker v. State, 478 So.2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Scott v. State, 469 So.2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Thus, the significant question Brown raises, and the only one we answer, is whether
We emphasize the difference between correcting an error which, if Brown‘s factual allegations are true, is plain, and determining whether that error affected the ultimate sentence. Hence, upon remand the trial court is first to determine whether Brown‘s scoresheet includes the additional points for victim injury. If it does not, the court may again deny the motion but either a scoresheet or other evidence relied upon to support its finding should be attached to the order. If, on the other hand, the scoresheet confirms the validity of Brown‘s factual assertion, the trial court should then examine the record to determine whether scoring victim injury was proper. If the
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
LEHAN, A.C.J., and SANDERLIN, J., concur.