to the bottom of the guidelines and were to run concurrent with each other. Cooper moved to correct sentencing errors because the scoresheets improperly included 23 points for robbery with a firearm when they should have only included 9 points for the lesser included offense of robbery. The trial court failed to rule on this motion within the time allowed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2)(B). As such the motion is deemed denied. “All defendants are entitled to be sentenced under a correctly scored and calculated score sheet.” Fortner v. State, 830 So.2d 174, 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). It is undisputed that Cooper was not sentenced under a correct score sheet with respect to the charges of burglary of a dwelling and dealing in stolen property. The second district A 2001) (<HOLDING>); Williams v. State, 773 So.2d 660 (Fla. 5th
holding defendant sentenced to term equal to maximum guidelines sentence under improperly calculated sentencing guidelines scoresheet was not entitled to be resentenced because defendant was habitualized such that sentencing guidelines score sheet was irrelevant and the sentence imposed was not illegal holding habitual sentence rendered guidelines scoresheet irrelevant holding sentencing scoresheet errors harmless where imposition of violent habitual offender sentence was appropriate rendering guidelines inapplicable holding that where original sentencing judge imposed a guidelines sentence defendant could not be sentenced as a habitual offender upon violation of probation holding habitual offender sentence rendered any errors in guidelines score sheet harmless