Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

719 So. 2d 348

Docket No. 98-2390.

Mathis v. State

Letarius MATHIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 2, 1998.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1998-10-02

Relies on 714 So. 2d 440 - White v. State · 644 So. 2d 81 - Roberts v. State · 661 So. 2d 1274 - Gardner v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1998-10-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently July 2012

10 state decisions

70199820002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*349 Letarius Mathis, Clermont, for Appellant.

¶2No Appearance for Appellee.

¶3GRIFFIN, Chief Judge.

¶4Letarius Mathis timely appeals the order summarily denying his Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct sentence.

¶5When Mathis was resentenced on April 24, 1996, upon violation of his probation, the lower court added twenty-five additional points for carrying a concealed firearm and made an additional assessment of eighteen points for that same offense, for a total of forty-three points. Mathis urges that the trial court must delete the forty-three points from his scoresheet and resentence him accordingly, relying on the recent opinion of the supreme court of Florida in White v. State,714 So.2d 440 (Fla.1998).

¶6The lower court in its order denied relief, holding that under Roberts v. State,644 So.2d 81 (Fla.1994), it was entitled to revise a scoresheet to include a prior conviction that was mistakenly omitted from the original scoresheet. This is a correct statement of the law. Moreover, because any error in adding that conviction to his prior record at resentencing is not apparent from the face of the scoresheet, Mathis's claim is not cognizable under Rule 3.800(a).

¶7The lower court's order does not go on to address Mathis's claim under White, which concerns the assessment of eighteen points as an enhancement under Rule 3.702(d)(12). Nonetheless, Mathis is not entitled to relief. He was resentenced on April 24, 1996, but White was not released until June 12, 1998, over two years later. Nothing in the White opinion indicates that it is to be given retrospective effect in a postconviction proceeding. At the time Mathis was resentenced in 1996, the law in this district was that additional sentencing points are proper when a defendant is convicted of carrying a concealed weapon or possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, even though carrying or possession of a firearm is an essential element of the underlying crime. See Gardner v. State,661 So.2d 1274 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

¶8AFFIRMED.

¶9GOSHORN and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

/719/so2d/348 · .json · Public domain