Opinion ID: 1779345
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Would-Have-Been-Imposed Test

Text: Courts have developed a harmless error analysis to determine whether a scoresheet error must be merely corrected (harmless) or whether the error warrants both correction and resentencing (harmful). [3] Under the original sentencing guidelines, the guidelines calculation resulted in a presumptive sentence of a single number of years and a one-cell recommended range of years. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.701(d) (1984). A sentence calculation error was deemed harmful if it fell outside the recommended range. [4] When amended in 1988, the guidelines provided that the sentence calculation would result in (1) a presumptive sentence, (2) a one-cell recommended range, and (3) a three-cell permitted range. Fla. Rules of Criminal Procedure re Sentencing Guidelines (Rules 3.701 & 3.988), 522 So.2d 374, 377 (Fla.1988). With this change, the district courts developed the test the Second District used in this case. The theory behind it was that a correct scoresheet was essential for the trial court to exercise its discretion in sentencing a defendant. As one court explained: Our research reveals that in cases where an error has occurred in calculating the guidelines score and the corrected score nevertheless places the defendant in the same guidelines cell, the error is considered harmless. However, when the deletion of improperly included points in the guidelines score results in a reduction of one or more cells, the sentence should be vacated and the cause remanded for resentencing upon a properly calculated scoresheet.... This rationale is consistent with the theory of the guidelines, recognized soon after the courts of this state began dealing with sentencing guidelines, that a correct calculation of the scoresheet is essential to establish a valid base for the trial court's exercise of its discretion in determining an appropriate sentence under the guidelines. Thus, it has been held, an incorrectly calculated minimum-maximum sentence range under the guidelines constitutes an erroneous base upon which the trial court exercises its discretion in aggravating the sentence, and requires reversal for resentencing, even in the absence of a contemporaneous objection. Only in circumstances where the appellate court is clearly convinced that the defendant would have received the same sentence notwithstanding the scoresheet error, such as where the sentence was imposed in accordance with a valid plea agreement, have the sentences been affirmed under the harmless error doctrine despite the erroneous score. Sellers v. State, 578 So.2d 339, 341 (Fla. 1st DCA) (citations omitted) (quoting Higgs v. State, 470 So.2d 75, 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)), approved on other grounds, 586 So.2d 340 (Fla.1991); see, e.g., Mooney v. State, 864 So.2d 60, 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (affirming as harmless the denial of a claim of scoresheet calculation error because the record demonstrated that the departure sentence would have been imposed despite the error), review denied, 873 So.2d 1223 (Fla.2004); Bell v. State, 670 So.2d 1133, 1134 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (reversing for resentencing unless the record conclusively demonstrates that the trial court would have given the same sentence had it known the correct score where the corrected scoresheet fell in a different cell, but the sentence was not only within the permitted range but in the correct cell). The 1994 guidelines created a new sentencing structure that afforded the court discretion to sentence within a permitted range twenty-five percent above or below a recommended sentence. §§ 921.0014(2),.0016(1), Fla. Stat. (2003). Although under this system any change in the scoresheet changed the recommended sentence range, the district courts continued to use the would-have-been-imposed test. See, e.g., McGreevey v. State, 717 So.2d 1111, 1112 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (stating that where a scoresheet error altered the permitted range of 62.3 to 104.2 months to a range of 52.5 to 86.75 months and the defendant was sentenced to 66 months, [the] trial judge should have a correct scoresheet before deciding whether to apply the permitted range and thus errors in scoring are not harmless). Occasionally, however, where the change in the range was minimal, courts have found the error harmless. See, e.g., Perez v. State, 840 So.2d 1179, 1180 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (remanding for a scoresheet correction only to delete 1.2 points from the score, reducing the maximum sentence from 182.7 to 181.25 months, where the defendant had been sentenced to 180 months); Eppert v. State, 712 So.2d 461, 462 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (remanding for a two-point correction of the scoresheet but not for resentencing where the error resulted in only a lower minimum range from 40.95 to 39.45 months and the defendant was sentenced to 48 months). Finally, under the Criminal Punishment Code, which applies to crimes committed after September 1998 (not to Anderson's), the sum of the total sentence points establishes the lowest permissible sentence, and the trial court may sentence a defendant anywhere from that sentence up to and including the statutory maximum. See § 921.0024(2), Fla. Stat. (2003). Thus, any change reducing the total sentence points reduces the lowest permissible sentence. In such cases, courts also have applied the would-have-been-imposed test. See, e.g., Stallings v. State, 876 So.2d 686, 688 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (reversing for resentencing based on a two-point error in the Code scoresheet and concluding that the court [could not] be sure that the lower score would not have affected the sentencing decision); White v. State, 873 So.2d 600, 600-01 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (remanding for correction of a scoresheet where the lowest permissible sentence was reduced from 53 to 44.4 months, but the record conclusively demonstrated that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence of 53 months even with a correct scoresheet). We announced the harmless error test, as it applied to errors raised on direct appeal, in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986). We defined harmful error as error about which an appellate court cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict. Id. The test focuses on the effect of the error on the verdict or the sentence. See Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158, 160 (Fla.1985) (holding that when a departure sentence is based on valid and invalid reasons, resentencing is required unless the appellate court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that absence of the invalid reasons would not have affected the departure sentence). The would-have-been-imposed test applies this standard to scoresheet error. It requires an examination of the record for conclusive proof that the scoresheet error did not affect or contribute to the sentencing decision. If the reviewing court cannot determine conclusively from the record that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence despite the erroneous scoresheet, remand for resentencing is required. Most courts use the would-have-been-imposed harmless error test on direct appeal from a sentence. See, e.g., Val v. State, 741 So.2d 1199, 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (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); Williams v. State, 720 So.2d 590, 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (remanding for resentencing with a corrected scoresheet because it cannot be said that the same sentence would have been imposed absent the error we here correct); Annunziata v. State, 697 So.2d 997, 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (remanding [b]ecause it does not appear beyond reasonable doubt that different sentences would not have been imposed had the correct score and range been presented to the trial court); Jenkins v. State, 687 So.2d 360, 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding that scoresheet error required reversal for resentencing because we are unable to conclude that appellant's sentence would have been the same had the trial court utilized a correctly calculated scoresheet); Diaz v. State, 667 So.2d 991, 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (While Diaz' 12-year sentence falls within the corrected recommended range, we are unable to conclude from this record that Diaz' sentence would have been the same had the trial court used a correctly calculated scoresheet.); Sellers, 578 So.2d at 341 (applying the would-have-been-imposed test and stating that to find harmless error would require the court to engage in pure speculation about the trial court's exercise of sentencing discretion, thus vacating the sentence and remanding for resentencing). Courts also have applied this test to claims raised under rule 3.850, as evidenced not only by the case before us for review, but others as well. For example, in Walker v. State, 880 So.2d 1262, 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), the court reversed for further proceedings the defendant's claim of scoresheet error under rule 3.850. The district court concluded that [u]nless the record can conclusively demonstrate that the trial court would have sentenced Walker to the same sentence using a corrected scoresheet, he is entitled to be resentenced using a corrected scoresheet. Id.; accord Knowles v. State, 791 So.2d 534, 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (reversing, where State conceded scoresheet error raised in defendant's 3.850 motion, for the trial court to provide proof that the sentencing guidelines scoresheet error did not affect Knowles' sentence or to re-sentence him with a corrected scoresheet); Bigham v. State, 761 So.2d 431, 432-33 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reversing the summary denial of defendant's 3.850 claim of scoresheet error for record attachments conclusively proving that the error did not affect the defendant's sentence or for resentencing with a correct scoresheet); Hammett v. State, 746 So.2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (reversing for resentencing, where the trial court conceded error, the summary denial of the defendant's scoresheet error claim under rule 3.850 because the record d[id] not conclusively demonstrate the trial court would have given Hammett the same sentence if the scoresheet had been properly calculated).