Marc P. Shalamoff v. State of Florida

D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEAL O F T HE STATE OF F LORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
MARC SHALAMOFF,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
Nos. 4D2024-1117 and 4D2024-1232
[February 11, 2026]
Consolidated 	appeals 	from 	the 	Circuit 	Court 	for 	the 	Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit, Broward County; N. Hunter Davis, Judge; L.T. Case Nos.
21-005885-CF-10A and 21-007690-CF-10A.
Daniel Eisinger, Public Defender, and Timothy Wang, Assistant Public
Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph Mollica,
Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
CONNER , J.
The 	defendant 	appeals 	his 	probation 	revocation 	and 	resultant
sentences in two cases, raising two arguments: (1) the state failed to
provide competent, substantial evidence the defendant committed new law
violations; and (2) the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion
to correct sentencing errors. On the defendant’s first argument, we affirm
the revocation of probation and resultant sentences without discussion.
On the defendant’s second argument, we reverse as to sentencing errors
conceded by the state.
During the appeal, the defendant filed a motion to correct sentences
pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), raising three
issues: (1) the trial court failed to enter an order identifying the probation
conditions that the defendant violated and the manner in which the
violation occurred; (2) the scoresheet erroneously listed two crimes as
additional 	offenses; 	and 	(3) 	the 	scoresheet 	and 	disposition 	orders
erroneously reflect that the defendant admitted the allegations or entered
a plea when he actually proceeded to a violation of probation hearing. The

2
trial court failed to enter an order ruling on the motion within sixty days
after it was filed, thus the motion is deemed denied. 	Fla. R. Crim. P.
3.800(b)(2)(B).
The state agrees the trial court should have granted the defendant’s
motion to correct sentencing errors and that we should remand for the
trial court to: (1) enter a written order specifying the probation conditions
that the defendant violated; (2) ministerially correct the scoresheet error
related 	to 	the 	additional 	offenses; 	and 	(3) 	ministerially 	correct 	the
scrivener’s errors in the scoresheets and disposition orders.
The defendant and the state are correct that the trial court erred in
denying the motion to correct sentencing errors in three ways. 	First, the
trial court failed to enter a written order specifying which probation
conditions the defendant had violated. 	See King v. State, 46 So. 3d 1171,
1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“If a trial court revokes a defendant’s probation,
the 	court 	is 	required 	to 	render 	a 	written 	order 	noting 	the 	specific
conditions of probation that were violated.”).
Second, the defendant’s scoresheet improperly scored misdemeanor
offenses as “additional offenses,” which were not pending before the trial
court at the time of the violation of probation sentencing. 	See Sanders v.
State, 	35 	So. 	3d 	864, 	869 	(Fla. 	2010) 	(“[A]n 	offense 	qualifies 	as 	an
‘additional offense’ for purposes of the scoresheet if it ‘is pending before
the court for sentencing at the time’ of the sentencing proceeding then
being conducted.” (quoting § 921.0021, Fla. Stat. (1999))); see also Somps
v. State, 183 So. 3d 1090, 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“An offense should
not 	be 	scored 	as 	an 	additional 	offense 	following 	the 	revocation 	of 	a
defendant’s probation if the defendant completed his sentence as to that
offense before the [violation of probation] occurred.”).
In the present case, the defendant entered a no contest plea to the two
misdemeanor counts of possession of drug paraphernalia that were scored
as “additional offenses” on his scoresheet. 	Adjudication was withheld on
those misdemeanors and the defendant was not placed on probation.
Accordingly, the misdemeanor sentences were not pending when the
violation of probation sentencing occurred and, therefore, could not be
scored as additional offenses. See Sanders, 35 So. 3d at 869; Somps, 183
So. 3d at 1092.
Third, 	the 	scoresheet 	contains 	a 	scrivener’s 	error 	in 	noting 	the
defendant had entered a plea on the violation of probation when he instead
had proceeded to a final hearing. 	That error should be corrected on
remand. 	See Moret v. State, 332 So. 3d 1133, 1134 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)

3
(remanding for correction of a scrivener’s error on scoresheet); Broyes v.
State, 382 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) (remanding for correction of
scrivener’s error in judgment). Although not mentioned by the parties, the
scoresheet also incorrectly lists the sentencing judge as Judge Coleman
instead of Judge Davis. The error identifying the sentencing judge should
likewise be corrected on remand.
Finally, the disposition orders also contain scrivener’s errors which
incorrectly reflect that the defendant admitted he had violated probation,
when in fact he had contested the violations and proceeded to a hearing.
The disposition orders should likewise be corrected on remand to reflect a
hearing. 	See Broyes, 382 So. 3d at 734.
Thus, we affirm the revocation of probation and the resulting sentences
except for the correction of the disposition orders and scoresheet as
directed above. 	See Maestas v. State, 212 So. 3d 391, 392 (Fla. 4th DCA
2017) (revocation affirmed but remanded for entry of written revocation
order specifying each condition of probation violated). The defendant need
not be present for issuance of a written order specifying the probation
conditions he violated or the ministerial corrections to his scoresheet and
disposition orders. See Williams v. State, 377 So. 3d 1179, 1180 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2024); Broyes, 382 So. 3d at 734.
Affirmed 	in 	part, 	reversed 	in 	part, 	and 	remanded 	for 	ministerial
corrections.
K UNTZ , C.J., and S HAW , J., concur.
* 	* 	*
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.