Lorenzo Lee Feaster v. State of Florida

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 5D2024-0701
LT Case Nos. 2023-302297-CFDB
2023-304461-CFDB
_____________________________
LORENZO LEE FEASTER,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County.
Karen A. Foxman, Judge.
Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Jacqueline Brandt,
Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alyssa M.
Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for
Appellee.
February 27, 2026
HARRIS, J.
Lorenzo Lee Feaster appeals the judgments and sentences
entered against him after a negotiated plea, arguing that he is
entitled to a corrected score sheet and that the trial court erred in

2
failing to enter a written order revoking his probation. Because
Feaster’s sentence was the result of a negotiated plea and the
scoresheet had no effect on his sentence, we affirm his sentence.
We remand only for the purpose of completing a correct scoresheet
if the trial court determines that the scoresheet is in error.
Moreover, because the trial court has since entered an order
revoking probation, Feaster’s second issue on appeal is moot.
In 2023, Feaster entered a global plea to several counts in
two pending felony cases in exchange for 36 months’ probation
with inpatient treatment. On January 22, 2024, a violation of
probation was filed in one of Feaster’s cases, alleging, inter alia,
that Feaster failed to complete an inpatient residential treatment
program and changed his residence without first procuring the
consent of the probation officer. Three days later, an affidavit was
filed in Feaster’s other case alleging the same violations as in the
previous affidavit but adding two new law violations.
On March 6, 2024, Feaster admitted to the violations in
exchange for five years in the Department of Corrections in both
cases. Defense counsel made no objection to the scoresheet and the
court accepted Feaster’s plea and sentenced him to five years’
prison on the new law violations and five years’ prison for violating
probation, the sentences to run concurrently.
Feaster appealed his judgment and sentences, and his
appointed counsel filed an Anders1 brief. Feaster subsequently
filed a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule
of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).
On January 14, 2025, the trial court entered an Amended
Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Correct Sentencing Error,
finding that because Feaster entered a negotiated plea, the
scoresheet, even if incorrect, had no effect on his ultimate sentence.
The court relied on two prior opinions from this Court, Ruff v.
State, 840 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), and Poole v. State, 777
So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

3
When this appeal proceeded, Feaster’s appointed appellate
counsel filed his initial brief, arguing that pursuant to Ruff, this
Court should remand for entry of a corrected and/or verified
scoresheet. In Ruff, the defendant appealed the sentence imposed
pursuant to a plea agreement, arguing that an error in the
scoresheet caused a misunderstanding regarding the minimum
sentence that could be imposed for the crimes he committed. 840
So. 2d at 1146. This Court held that the defendant was not entitled
to relief because his sentence was the result of a negotiated plea
and the erroneous scoresheet had no effect on the sentence. We
affirmed the defendant’s sentence without prejudice to the
defendant to file a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, raising the issue of the
voluntariness of his plea and seeking to withdraw from the plea
should he conclude that to do so would be in his best interest. In
accordance with our earlier decision in Poole, we remanded the
case to the trial court to recalculate and correct the scoresheet even
though doing so would not affect the defendant’s sentence. Poole,
777 So. 2d at 1187 (holding defendant “correctly insists that he is
entitled to an accurate 1994 scoresheet”); see also Blake v. State,
873 So. 2d 1259, 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“Appellant is entitled
to correction of the judgment to reflect Appellant’s correct
misdemeanor offense.”); Taylor v. State, 832 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2002) (holding that although inclusion of crime on scoresheet
for which defendant was acquitted had no effect on his guidelines
sentence, defendant was entitled to have his scoresheet corrected);
Davis v. State, 529 So. 2d 1251, 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (holding
defendant was “entitled to have the record set straight even if
there is little possibility that the total time actually spent in jail
will be affected”).
Accordingly, we affirm Feaster’s sentence without prejudice
to him seeking relief pursuant to rule 3.850. We further remand
this matter only for the purpose of completing a correct scoresheet,
if in error noting that the burden of corroborating a disputed
scoresheet by competent and substantial evidence lies with the
State. See Brown v. State, 695 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
(citing Watson v. State, 591 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)).

4
AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions.
BOATWRIGHT, J., concurs.
EISNAUGLE, J., concurs specially with opinion.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________

5
Case No. 5D2024-0701
LT Case Nos. 2023-302297-CFDB
2023-304461-CFDB
EISNAUGLE, J., concurring specially.
I agree that we must remand for the trial court to consider the
merits of Appellant’s argument that his scoresheet is erroneous.
Although the trial court correctly concluded that any error would
be harmless in this case, Appellant is likewise correct that our
decisions in Poole v. State, 777 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001),
and Ruff v. State, 840 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003),
nevertheless require the trial court to consider Appellant’s
challenge to the scoresheet on the merits.
In my view, Poole and Ruff were wrongly decided. Were I not
bound by those decisions, I would affirm without instructing the
trial court to consider a correction to Appellant’s scoresheet.