Court Opinion

ID: 9950177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 15:05:32.491387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:35:59.365329
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                              FOURTH DISTRICT

                        FRANK J. QUARLES, III,
                             Appellant,

                                     v.

                          STATE OF FLORIDA,
                               Appellee.

                             No. 4D2022-2265

                             [March 13, 2024]

  Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach County; Scott Suskauer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502012CF001830A.

  Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Timothy Wang, Assistant
Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

  Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

GERBER, J.

   The defendant appeals from his convictions and sentences for second-
degree murder with a firearm, possession of a firearm by a minor, and
carrying a concealed firearm. These convictions and sentences occurred
after a second jury trial, which had followed our reversal of the same
convictions from the defendant’s first trial. See generally Quarles v. State,
290 So. 3d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).

    Regarding the defendant’s convictions after his second trial, he raises
three arguments: (1) the circuit court erred by denying his motion for
judgment of acquittal where the state allegedly failed to present sufficient
evidence of identity; (2) the circuit court erred by allowing the state to
introduce evidence of a gun and ammunition which the state allegedly
failed to connect to the shooting; and (3) the defendant was entitled to a
twelve-person jury under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. We
conclude all three arguments lack merit, without further discussion.
Therefore, we affirm the defendant’s convictions.
   Regarding the defendant’s sentences after his second trial, he argues
the circuit court erred by denying his motion to correct sentence, which
raised three separate arguments: (1) the twenty-five year judicial review
provision was not included in the Florida Department of Corrections’ pre-
printed sentencing forms; (2) the defendant’s scoresheet incorrectly
identified the defendant’s convictions in the instant case for possession of
a firearm by a minor and carrying a concealed firearm, for which the
defendant already had served the maximum sentence by the time of his
second trial, as “additional offenses”; and (3) the defendant’s scoresheet
incorrectly identified certain offenses – which had occurred after his
primary offense of second-degree murder – as part of his “prior record.”

   We conclude the defendant’s first and second sentencing arguments
lack merit, without further discussion. The state concedes error on the
defendant’s third sentencing argument. We agree and will address briefly.

    Section 921.0021(5), Florida Statutes (2012), defines a “prior record”
as “a conviction for a crime committed by the offender, as an adult or a
juvenile, prior to the time of the primary offense.” Florida Rule of Criminal
Procedure 3.704(d)(14) provides the same definition. As such, “[t]he only
offenses that may be included under ‘prior record’ are those committed by
the offender prior to the commission of the primary offense.” Sumpter v.
State, 838 So. 2d 615, 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

   Here, the state concedes the defendant’s scoresheet incorrectly
identified three offenses as part of his “prior record” which the defendant
had committed while in custody awaiting trial on the instant offenses.
Thus, the defendant committed those offenses after his primary offense of
second-degree murder. On remand, the circuit court shall issue a
corrected scoresheet omitting those three latter offenses from the
scoresheet’s “prior record” section.

   The foregoing scoresheet correction can be accomplished ministerially
without the defendant’s presence. Therefore, we affirm the defendant’s
sentences, but remand for the circuit court to correct the defendant’s
scoresheet as we have directed.

   Convictions and sentences affirmed; remanded for issuance of corrected
scoresheet as directed.

DAMOORGIAN and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

                            *         *        *

                                      2
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                               3