PLATT v. STATE (2019)

Appellant appeals his sentence raising six issues. We remand on one of these issues and otherwise affirm without discussion. The State concedes the trial court erroneously added 3.2 points for prior convictions more than fifteen years old. Defendant challenged the inclusion of the priors in a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(1) motion, and the State declined to provide competent evidence demonstrating the appellant's release “from confinement, supervision, or other sanction” within ten years of the new offense. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.704(d)(14)(A); cf. Dresch v. State, 150 So.3d 1199, 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (holding the State was required to provide competent evidence that the defendant had committed the crimes listed on his scoresheet when he challenged the inclusion of the crimes in a rule 3.800(b)(1) motion). Accordingly, we remand with instructions to the trial court to correct the scoresheet. See Naugle v. State, 244 So.3d 1127, 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). We do not remand for resentencing, however, because “the record conclusively shows that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence using a correct scoresheet.” Id. (quoting Brooks v. State, 969 So.2d 238, 241 (Fla. 2007) ).

Affirmed; remanded for correction of scoresheet only.

Per Curiam.

Damoorgian, Conner and Forst, JJ., concur.