Ronald Hartshorn v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledMay 19, 2023
Docket2D2022-2016
StatusPublished
๐ฐ News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
RONALD HARTSHORN, IV,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 2D22-2016
May 19, 2023
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for
Pasco County; Kimberly Campbell, Judge.
Ronald Hartshorn, IV, pro se.
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Ronald Hartshorn, IV, appeals the summary denial of his motion
for postconviction relief on remand from this court's decision in
Hartshorn v. State, 333 So. 3d 344, 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022), wherein we
directed the postconviction court to treat the motion as one filed under
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse for two reasons.
First, the postconviction court did not attach records to its order
conclusively refuting Hartshorn's claim that he did not receive the
sentence to which he pleaded because he and the State were
misinformed about the correct minimum permissible sentence. Second,
Hartshorn's motion should have been stricken with leave to amend
because it was facially insufficient under rule 3.850 for failing to seek to
withdraw his plea.
Hartshorn's plea colloquy in this case was meant to resolve his
charges for burglary of a structure and grand theft. When discussing
Hartshorn's negotiated plea, the court initially used a scoresheet based
on charges that had since been amended. The transcript of that hearing
shows that Hartshorn himself brought the error to the court's attention.
He said he had "no problem signing the bottom of [his] guidelines," but
that the scoresheet should no longer reflect a 75-month minimum
sentence that was based on the prior information. The State agreed:
THE STATE: Judge, he scores 63.9 months, at the
bottom. I fixed the scoresheet for the amended Information.
So his sentence would be 63.9 today, if he were to accept it
with the liens of restitution.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: So it's 63.9 months rather than 75?
THE STATE: Correct. The bottom of his guidelines is
now 63.9, so I would offer a 64-month sentence today.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
With this new understanding, Hartshorn pleaded guilty, and the
lower court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of 60 months for
grand theft and 64 months for burglary.
Within a year, Hartshorn filed a sworn motion for postconviction
relief styled as one pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
3.800(a). In that motion, Hartshorn alleged that the scoresheet was still
significantly incorrect. He explained that on the revised scoresheet, the
State had incorrectly scored two of his prior convictions as Level 6
offenses rather than Level 1; thus, his sentencing scoresheet should have
reflected a minimum prison sentence of 51.15 months rather than 63.9
2
months. Hartshorn alleged that his plea deal was for the lowest
permissible sentence, and therefore his 64-month sentence was
incorrect.
The State acknowledged that Hartshorn's calculations were correct.
It submitted a revised scoresheet reflecting a minimum permissible
sentence of 51.15 months. But the State maintained that Hartshorn
should not be resentenced because his plea agreement was for a term of
64 months, not for a sentence equal to the minimum permissible
sentence.
The postconviction court summarily denied Hartshorn's motion.
On appeal, this court reversed for the postconviction court to treat the
motion as one filed under rule 3.850. On remand, the postconviction
court summarily denied the motion once more. It declared that the
scoresheet reflecting a 63.9-month minimum sentence was correct,
rejecting the State's concession and revised scoresheet. The order did
not address the State's alternative argument. Again, Hartshorn has
appealed.
On the merits, the record does not conclusively refute Hartshorn's
allegation that the State incorrectly scored his two prior convictions for
felony battery in case number 2016-CF-9905. The attachments to
Hartshorn's motion reflected that those convictions were for violations of
section 784.03(2), Florida Statutes (2016), described as "prior convic [sic]
battery commit 2nd [sic] sub battery."1 The offense severity chart set
forth in section 921.0022(3), Florida Statutes (2016) does not assign a
severity level to battery offenses charged under section 784.03(2), as
1 Section 784.03(2), Florida Statutes (2016), provides that "[a]
person who has one prior conviction for battery, aggravated battery, or
felony battery and commits any second or subsequent battery commits a
felony of the third degree."
3
Hartshorn's prior charges were.2 Therefore, Hartshorn's priors fall under
the criminal punishment code's catch-all provision for third-degree
felonies for which the legislature has not specified a severity level, i.e.,
level 1. See ยง 921.0023(1), Fla. Stat. (2016). As such, they properly are
assigned only .5 points each under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
3.992(a), rather than the nine points attributed to them on the
scoresheet the postconviction court used. See In re Amendments to
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.992โCriminal Punishment Code
Scoresheets, 147 So. 3d 515, 516 (Fla. 2014). Obviously, then, the
postconviction court's continued reliance on the original scoresheet was
error.
The record on appeal does not show that this error was harmless.
See Brooks v. State, 969 So. 2d 238, 238 (Fla. 2007) (holding that "the
would-have-been-imposed test" applies to scoresheet error claims under
rule 3.850 and requires resentencing "unless the record conclusively
shows that the same sentence would have been imposed using a correct
scoresheet" (citing State v. Anderson, 905 So. 2d 111, 112 (Fla. 2005))).
Rather, the sentencing hearing transcript quoted above demonstrates
that Hartshorn and the State premised their negotiations on whatever
the lowest permissible sentence was. The record does not show that the
State would have offered, or that Hartshorn would have accepted, the
2 The postconviction court posited that section 921.0022(3)(f),
Florida Statutes (2016), assigns a severity level to "felony battery," and so
that subsection must apply to Hartshorn's prior charges which were
elevated to third-degree felonies by virtue of his prior battery convictions.
But that subsection's plain language applies only to felony battery as
defined under section 784.041, Florida Statutes (2016), requiring "great
bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement" or
"domestic battery by strangulation." Section 784.041 is an entirely
different statute codifying different offenses than Hartshorn's prior
violations of section 784.03(2), so section 921.0022(3)(f) does not apply.
4
same sentence had either known that the lowest permissible sentence
was nearly thirteen months lower than represented by the erroneous
scoresheet.
For these reasons, we cannot affirm the postconviction court's
order on appeal. However, Hartshorn's motion did not affirmatively ask
to withdraw his plea, rendering it facially insufficient as a motion to
withdraw plea under rule 3.850. In this situation, Hartshorn was
entitled to have his claim stricken with leave to amend, rather than
denied on its merits. See Costello v. State, 330 So. 3d 1052, 1053 (Fla.
2d DCA 2021) (defendant's claim that his plea was involuntary based on
affirmative misadvice regarding the lowest permissible sentence, but
demanding his sentence be modified, warranted the motion being
stricken as facially insufficient with leave to amend to include a request
to withdraw the plea) (citing Agent v. State, 19 So. 3d 1114, 1115 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2009))).
Therefore, we reverse the postconviction court's order and remand
with directions to strike Hartshorn's motion with leave to amend. See
Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2). If Hartshorn amends his motion and seeks to
withdraw his plea, the postconviction court shall either attach those
portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim or hold an
evidentiary hearing. We note that if Hartshorn is ultimately successful in
having his plea agreement set aside, he will, in the absence of a new plea
agreement, be exposed to any legal sentence that could be imposed upon
conviction of the charges.
Reversed and remanded.
VILLANTI and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
5
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
6