When Sentencing Goes Wrong: Lessons from Brantley v. State

In the complex world of criminal sentencing, even small errors can lead to significant consequences. The recent Brantley v. State, No. 1D2023-1695 (Fla. 1st DCA, Apr. 9, 2025), decision from Florida’s First District Court of Appeal serves as a stark reminder of this fact, shedding light on a critical aspect of how sentences are calculated under Florida law. This case highlights a common pitfall in sentencing procedures and underscores the importance of precision in ensuring justice is served. Let’s break down what happened, why it matters, and what it means for the future of sentencing in Florida.

The Case: A Quick Overview

Dominic Brantley was on probation for two third-degree felonies—felony battery and robbery by sudden snatching—when he committed a new crime: arson, a first-degree felony. After a jury convicted him of arson, the trial court revoked his probation for the earlier offenses. At sentencing, the court faced the task of sentencing Brantley for all three offenses: the new arson conviction and the two probation violations.

Here’s where things got tricky. The trial court used a single Criminal Punishment Code (CPC) scoresheet that included all three offenses, with arson (the most serious offense) listed as the primary offense. Based on this scoresheet, the court calculated a lowest permissible sentence (LPS) of 64.95 months. The court then sentenced Brantley as a habitual felony offender (HFO) to life imprisonment for the arson and to 64.95 months for each of the two probation offenses, with all sentences running concurrently.

Brantley appealed, arguing that the scoresheet was incorrect because it included the arson offense, which was sentenced under the HFO statute, alongside the probation offenses sentenced under the CPC. The appellate court agreed, vacating the sentences for the probation offenses and sending the case back for resentencing. But why was this a problem? Let’s dive into the legal details.

A judge's gavel rests atop a stack of documents in a courtroom, symbolizing the extensive paperwork and legal proceedings involved in the justice system.

Understanding Florida’s Sentencing Framework

To grasp the significance of Brantley v. State, it’s essential to understand the two sentencing systems at play: the Criminal Punishment Code (CPC) and habitual felony offender (HFO) sentencing.

CPC Sentencing:

The CPC is Florida’s standard sentencing system. It uses a scoresheet to calculate sentence points based on all offenses being sentenced at the same time and other factors. These points determine the LPS, which is the minimum sentence a court can impose unless there’s a valid reason for a downward departure. Importantly, if the LPS exceeds the statutory maximum for an offense (e.g., 60 months for a third-degree felony), the LPS becomes the required sentence for that offense.

HFO Sentencing:

HFO sentencing is a separate system designed to impose harsher penalties on repeat offenders. Unlike CPC sentencing, HFO sentences are not governed by the scoresheet and can exceed the usual statutory maximums. For example, a first-degree felony like arson, which typically carries a maximum of 30 years, can result in a life sentence under HFO provisions.

The key takeaway? CPC and HFO sentencing are distinct and must be handled separately. Mixing them up can lead to serious errors—as it did in Brantley’s case.

The Mistake: Mixing Apples and Oranges

In Brantley v. State, the trial court made a critical error by including the arson offense (sentenced under HFO) on the same CPC scoresheet used to calculate the sentences for the two probation offenses (sentenced under the CPC). This is akin to mixing two different financial accounts and expecting an accurate balance—it just doesn’t work.

Here’s why it’s a problem:

• The arson offense, as an HFO sentence, should have been kept separate from the CPC scoresheet. Florida law, including precedents like State v. Collins, 985 So. 2d 985, 991 (Fla. 2008) and Sheffield v. State, 214 So. 3d 763, 764 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017), makes it clear that HFO offenses cannot be listed as primary or additional offenses on a CPC scoresheet.

• By including the arson (a level 8 felony), the scoresheet’s total points were inflated to 114.6, resulting in an LPS of 64.95 months.

• Since this LPS exceeded the 60-month statutory maximum for the two third-degree felonies, the court was required to impose the LPS (64.95 months) for each of those offenses.

But wait—those third-degree felonies should have had a maximum sentence of 60 months each. So why was Brantley sentenced to more? The answer lies in the erroneous inclusion of the arson on the scoresheet. Without it, the LPS for the probation offenses would likely have been below 60 months, meaning Brantley would have received shorter sentences.

The Court’s Ruling: A Lesson in Precision

The First District Court of Appeal didn’t mince words: including an HFO offense on a CPC scoresheet is an error. In Brantley’s case, this error led to an incorrect LPS calculation, which in turn resulted in sentences for the probation offenses that exceeded the statutory maximum without legal justification. The court vacated those sentences and ordered resentencing with a properly prepared scoresheet—one that excludes the arson offense.

The court also addressed a side issue raised by the State: whether Brantley forfeited his right to challenge the scoresheet because his lawyer accepted it at sentencing. The court rejected this argument, explaining that mere acquiescence (failing to object) is not the same as actively inviting the error. Since Brantley’s lawyer didn’t request the incorrect scoresheet, the issue was preserved for appeal.

Why This Matters: Real Consequences for Defendants

At first glance, this case might seem like a technicality—a debate over paperwork and numbers. But for Brantley, the stakes were real. The erroneous scoresheet led to sentences that were nearly five months longer than the maximum allowed for his probation offenses. In the world of criminal justice, every additional day behind bars matters.

This case also serves as a cautionary tale for courts and practitioners. Sentencing is a meticulous process, and even small missteps can unravel a carefully constructed sentence. Defense attorneys must be vigilant in reviewing scoresheets, especially in cases involving multiple offenses and potential sentencing enhancements like HFO status. Prosecutors and judges, too, must ensure that scoresheets are accurately prepared to avoid reversible errors.

Looking Ahead: Ensuring Justice Through Precision

The Brantley decision underscores the necessity for precision in sentencing procedures. It reminds us that in the intricate dance of criminal sentencing, every step must be carefully executed to ensure justice is served. As Florida’s sentencing laws continue to evolve, cases like this highlight the ongoing need for clarity and diligence in the justice system.

So, what can be done to minimize such errors in the future? Perhaps it’s a matter of better training for legal professionals, clearer guidelines from the legislature, or more robust checks and balances during the sentencing process. Whatever the solution, one thing is clear: in the pursuit of justice, there’s no room for shortcuts.