Terry Lee Humphrey v. State of Florida

FIRST D ISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
S TATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D2024-0032
_____________________________
T ERRY LEE H UMPHREY ,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA ,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County.
Melissa G. Olin, Judge.
March 4, 2026
P ER C URIAM.
A jury found Appellant Terry Lee Humphrey guilty of sexual
battery on a minor at least 12 years old but less than 18, lewd or
lascivious 	battery, 	lewd 	or 	lascivious 	molestation, 	lewd 	or
lascivious conduct, and lewd or lascivious exhibition. He raises
three issues for appellate review involving: (1) a ruling that certain
Appellant-proffered testimony was inadmissible, (2) a rejected
special jury instruction, and (3) the inclusion of two old, prior
offenses in the sentencing scoresheet calculation.
Seeing no error on the first two issues, we affirm them without
discussion. On the third issue, the State correctly concedes that
the 	trial 	court 	used 	an 	incorrect 	scoresheet 	calculation 	at
sentencing. Specifically, the sentencing scoresheet erroneously

2
included two prior convictions which occurred more than ten years
before 	the 	primary 	offense 	where 	Appellant 	had 	not 	been
“convicted of any other crime for a period of 10 consecutive years
from 	the 	most 	recent 	date 	of 	release 	from 	confinement,
supervision, or sanction, whichever is later, to the date of the
primary offense.” § 921.0021(5), Fla. Stat. The inclusion of these
prior convictions added 7.20 points to the total score. We cannot
say that the error was harmless because the record does not
conclusively show that the trial court would have imposed the
same sentence on counts 4 and 5 using a corrected scoresheet. See
Brooks v. State, 969 So. 2d 238, 241 (Fla. 2007). If the prior
convictions had been excluded from the scoresheet, counts 4 and 5
would 	have 	received 	lower 	minimum 	sentences 	based 	on 	the
scoresheet formula, which, in turn, may have altered the trial
court’s sentences on those counts. We thus remand counts 4 and 5
for resentencing with a corrected scoresheet.
Conversely, the trial court would have imposed life sentences
on counts 1 through 3 even if the prior convictions had not been
erroneously included on the scoresheet. Appellant’s score without
the extra 7.20 points would have still put him well above the
statutory threshold necessary for the imposition of a life sentence.
§ 921.0024(2), Fla. Stat. (2025). And here, the record conclusively
shows that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence
if using a correct scoresheet. See Brooks, 969 So. 2d at 241. We
therefore affirm the life sentences in counts 1 through 3, since the
scoresheet error was harmless as to these counts.
A FFIRMED in part; 	REVERSED 	in part and 	REMANDED 	for
resentencing as to counts 4 and 5.
OSTERHAUS, C.J., and R OWE and B ILBREY , JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not 	final 	until 	disposition 	of 	any 	timely 	and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________

3
Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Richard M. Bracey, III,
Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
James 	Uthmeier, 	Attorney 	General, 	Travis 	Wesley 	Munden,
Assistant Attorney General, and David Welch, Assistant Attorney
General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.