Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 921.0024 (2025)

Criminal Punishment Code; worksheet computations; scoresheets.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

921.0024 Criminal Punishment Code; worksheet computations; scoresheets.—

(1)(a) The Criminal Punishment Code worksheet is used to compute the subtotal and total sentence points as follows:

FLORIDA CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT CODE
WORKSHEET

OFFENSE SCORE

Primary Offense
Level	Sentence Points		Total
10	116	=
9	92	=
8	74	=
7	56	=
6	36	=
5	28	=
4	22	=
3	16	=
2	10	=
1	4	=

Total

Additional Offenses
Level	Sentence Points		Counts		Total
10	58	x		=
9	46	x		=
8	37	x		=
7	28	x		=
6	18	x		=
5	5.4	x		=
4	3.6	x		=
3	2.4	x		=
2	1.2	x		=
1	0.7	x		=
M	0.2	x		=

Total

Victim Injury
Level	Sentence Points		Number		Total
2nd degree murder- death	240	x		=
Death	120	x		=
Severe	40	x		=
Moderate	18	x		=
Slight	4	x		=
Sexual penetration	80	x		=
Sexual contact	40	x		=

Total

Primary Offense + Additional Offenses + Victim Injury =

TOTAL OFFENSE SCORE

PRIOR RECORD SCORE

Prior Record
Level	Sentence Points		Number		Total
10	29	x		=
9	23	x		=
8	19	x		=
7	14	x		=
6	9	x		=
5	3.6	x		=
4	2.4	x		=
3	1.6	x		=
2	0.8	x		=
1	0.5	x		=
M	0.2	x		=

Total

TOTAL OFFENSE SCORE

TOTAL PRIOR RECORD SCORE

LEGAL STATUS

COMMUNITY SANCTION VIOLATION

PRIOR SERIOUS FELONY

PRIOR CAPITAL FELONY

FIREARM OR SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPON

SUBTOTAL

PRISON RELEASEE REOFFENDER (no)(yes)

VIOLENT CAREER CRIMINAL (no)(yes)

HABITUAL VIOLENT OFFENDER (no)(yes)

HABITUAL OFFENDER (no)(yes)

AGGRAVATED ANIMAL CRUELTY (no)(yes) (x multiplier)

DRUG TRAFFICKER (no)(yes) (x multiplier)

LAW ENF. PROTECT. (no)(yes) (x multiplier)

MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT (no)(yes) (x multiplier)

CRIMINAL GANG OFFENSE (no)(yes) (x multiplier)

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE PRESENCE OF RELATED CHILD (no)(yes) (x multiplier)

ADULT-ON-MINOR SEX OFFENSE (no)(yes) (x multiplier)

TOTAL SENTENCE POINTS

(b) WORKSHEET KEY:

Legal status points are assessed when any form of legal status existed at the time the offender committed an offense before the court for sentencing. Four (4) sentence points are assessed for an offender’s legal status.

Community sanction violation points are assessed when a community sanction violation is before the court for sentencing. Six (6) sentence points are assessed for each community sanction violation and each successive community sanction violation, unless any of the following apply:

1. If the community sanction violation includes a new felony conviction before the sentencing court, twelve (12) community sanction violation points are assessed for the violation, and for each successive community sanction violation involving a new felony conviction.

2. If the community sanction violation is committed by a violent felony offender of special concern as defined in s. 948.06:

a. Twelve (12) community sanction violation points are assessed for the violation and for each successive violation of felony probation or community control where:

I. The violation does not include a new felony conviction; and

II. The community sanction violation is not based solely on the probationer or offender’s failure to pay costs or fines or make restitution payments.

b. Twenty-four (24) community sanction violation points are assessed for the violation and for each successive violation of felony probation or community control where the violation includes a new felony conviction.

Multiple counts of community sanction violations before the sentencing court shall not be a basis for multiplying the assessment of community sanction violation points.

Prior serious felony points: If the offender has a primary offense or any additional offense ranked in level 8, level 9, or level 10, and one or more prior serious felonies, a single assessment of thirty (30) points shall be added. For purposes of this section, a prior serious felony is an offense in the offender’s prior record that is ranked in level 8, level 9, or level 10 under s. 921.0022 or s. 921.0023 and for which the offender is serving a sentence of confinement, supervision, or other sanction or for which the offender’s date of release from confinement, supervision, or other sanction, whichever is later, is within 3 years before the date the primary offense or any additional offense was committed.

Prior capital felony points: If the offender has one or more prior capital felonies in the offender’s criminal record, points shall be added to the subtotal sentence points of the offender equal to twice the number of points the offender receives for the primary offense and any additional offense. A prior capital felony in the offender’s criminal record is a previous capital felony offense for which the offender has entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty or has been found guilty; or a felony in another jurisdiction which is a capital felony in that jurisdiction, or would be a capital felony if the offense were committed in this state.

Possession of a firearm, semiautomatic firearm, or machine gun: If the offender is convicted of committing or attempting to commit any felony other than those enumerated in s. 775.087(2) while having in his or her possession: a firearm as defined in s. 790.001, an additional eighteen (18) sentence points are assessed; or if the offender is convicted of committing or attempting to commit any felony other than those enumerated in s. 775.087(3) while having in his or her possession a semiautomatic firearm as defined in s. 775.087(3) or a machine gun as defined in s. 790.001, an additional twenty-five (25) sentence points are assessed.

Sentencing multipliers:

Aggravated Animal Cruelty: If the primary offense is aggravated animal cruelty under s. 828.12(2), which included the knowing and intentional torture or torment of an animal that injured, mutilated, or killed the animal, the subtotal sentence points are multiplied by 1.25. As used in this paragraph, the term “animal” does not include an animal used for agricultural purposes or permitted as captive wildlife as authorized under s. 379.303.

Drug trafficking: If the primary offense is drug trafficking under s. 893.135, the subtotal sentence points are multiplied, at the discretion of the court, for a level 7 or level 8 offense, by 1.5. The state attorney may move the sentencing court to reduce or suspend the sentence of a person convicted of a level 7 or level 8 offense, if the offender provides substantial assistance as described in s. 893.135(4).

Violent offenses committed against specified justice system personnel: If the primary offense is a violation of s. 775.0823(2), (3), or (4), the subtotal sentence points are multiplied by 2.5. If the primary offense is a violation of s. 775.0823(5), (6), (7), (8), or (9), the subtotal sentence points are multiplied by 2.0. If the primary offense is a violation of s. 784.07(3) or s. 775.0875(1), or s. 775.0823(10) or (11), the subtotal sentence points are multiplied by 1.5.

Grand theft of a motor vehicle: If the primary offense is grand theft of the third degree involving a motor vehicle and in the offender’s prior record, there are three or more grand thefts of the third degree involving a motor vehicle, the subtotal sentence points are multiplied by 1.5.

Fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer: If the primary offense is fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer or aggravated fleeing or eluding in violation of s. 316.1935, and in the offender’s prior record, there is one or more violation of s. 316.1935, the subtotal sentence points are multiplied by 1.5.

Offense related to a criminal gang: If the offender is convicted of the primary offense and committed that offense for the purpose of benefiting, promoting, or furthering the interests of a criminal gang as defined in s. 874.03, the subtotal sentence points are multiplied by 1.5. If applying the multiplier results in the lowest permissible sentence exceeding the statutory maximum sentence for the primary offense under chapter 775, the court may not apply the multiplier and must sentence the defendant to the statutory maximum sentence.

Domestic violence in the presence of a child: If the offender is convicted of the primary offense and the primary offense is a crime of domestic violence, as defined in s. 741.28, which was committed in the presence of a child under 16 years of age who is a family or household member as defined in s. 741.28(3) with the victim or perpetrator, the subtotal sentence points are multiplied by 1.5.

Adult-on-minor sex offense: If the offender was 18 years of age or older and the victim was younger than 18 years of age at the time the offender committed the primary offense, and if the primary offense was an offense committed on or after October 1, 2014, and is a violation of s. 787.01(2) or s. 787.02(2), if the violation involved a victim who was a minor and, in the course of committing that violation, the defendant committed a sexual battery under chapter 794 or a lewd act under s. 800.04 or s. 847.0135(5) against the minor; s. 787.01(3)(a)2. or 3.; s. 787.02(3)(a)2. or 3.; s. 794.011, excluding s. 794.011(10); s. 800.04; or s. 847.0135(5), the subtotal sentence points are multiplied by 2.0. If applying the multiplier results in the lowest permissible sentence exceeding the statutory maximum sentence for the primary offense under chapter 775, the court may not apply the multiplier and must sentence the defendant to the statutory maximum sentence.

(2) The lowest permissible sentence is the minimum sentence that may be imposed by the trial court, absent a valid reason for departure. The lowest permissible sentence is any nonstate prison sanction in which the total sentence points equals or is less than 44 points, unless the court determines within its discretion that a prison sentence, which may be up to the statutory maximums for the offenses committed, is appropriate. When the total sentence points exceeds 44 points, the lowest permissible sentence in prison months shall be calculated by subtracting 28 points from the total sentence points and decreasing the remaining total by 25 percent. The total sentence points shall be calculated only as a means of determining the lowest permissible sentence. The permissible range for sentencing shall be the lowest permissible sentence up to and including the statutory maximum, as defined in s. 775.082, for the primary offense and any additional offenses before the court for sentencing. The sentencing court may impose such sentences concurrently or consecutively. However, any sentence to state prison must exceed 1 year. If the lowest permissible sentence under the code exceeds the statutory maximum sentence as provided in s. 775.082, the sentence required by the code must be imposed. If the total sentence points are greater than or equal to 363, the court may sentence the offender to life imprisonment. An offender sentenced to life imprisonment under this section is not eligible for any form of discretionary early release, except executive clemency or conditional medical release under s. 947.149.

(3) A single digitized scoresheet shall be prepared for each defendant to determine the permissible range for the sentence that the court may impose, except that if the defendant is before the court for sentencing for more than one felony and the felonies were committed under more than one version or revision of the guidelines or the code, separate digitized scoresheets must be prepared. The scoresheet or scoresheets must cover all the defendant’s offenses pending before the court for sentencing. The state attorney shall prepare the digitized scoresheet or scoresheets, which must be presented to the defense counsel for review for accuracy in all cases unless the judge directs otherwise. The defendant’s scoresheet or scoresheets must be approved and signed by the sentencing judge.

(4) The Department of Corrections, in consultation with the Office of the State Courts Administrator, state attorneys, and public defenders, must develop and submit the revised digitized Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet to the Supreme Court for approval by June 15 of each year, as necessary. The digitized scoresheet shall have individual, structured data cells for each data field on the scoresheet. Upon the Supreme Court’s approval of the revised digitized scoresheet, the Department of Corrections shall produce and provide the revised digitized scoresheets by September 30 of each year, as necessary. Digitized scoresheets must include individual data cells to indicate whether any prison sentence imposed includes a mandatory minimum sentence or the sentence imposed was a downward departure from the lowest permissible sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code.

(5) The Department of Corrections shall make available the digitized Criminal Punishment Code scoresheets to those persons charged with the responsibility for preparing scoresheets.

(6) The clerk of the circuit court shall transmit a complete and accurate digitized copy of the Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet used in each sentencing proceeding to the Department of Corrections. Scoresheets must be electronically transmitted no less frequently than monthly, by the first of each month, and may be sent collectively.

(7) A digitized sentencing scoresheet must be prepared for every defendant who is sentenced for a felony offense. The individual offender’s digitized Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet and any attachments thereto prepared pursuant to Rule 3.701, Rule 3.702, or Rule 3.703, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, or any other rule pertaining to the preparation and submission of felony sentencing scoresheets, must be included with the uniform judgment and sentence form provided to the Department of Corrections.

History.—s. 7, ch. 97-194; s. 6, ch. 98-204; s. 111, ch. 99-3; s. 57, ch. 99-7; s. 3, ch. 99-12; s. 10, ch. 99-188; s. 56, ch. 99-193; s. 25, ch. 2000-320; s. 2, ch. 2001-126; s. 4, ch. 2001-183; s. 1, ch. 2002-212; s. 163, ch. 2004-5; s. 18, ch. 2005-128; s. 5, ch. 2007-2; s. 2, ch. 2007-212; s. 26, ch. 2008-238; s. 6, ch. 2013-80; s. 9, ch. 2014-4; s. 5, ch. 2016-7; s. 5, ch. 2018-127; s. 31, ch. 2023-18; s. 2, ch. 2023-190; s. 3, ch. 2025-75; s. 3, ch. 2025-102.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 218 cases (38 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Champagne v. State, 269 So. 3d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Champagne v. State, 269 So. 3d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019). · cites it 32× “The postconviction court denied Champagne's motion, finding that section 921.0024 does not require the LPS to be imposed "only if it exceeds the statutory maximum for the primarily scored offense.”

Hall v. State, 823 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2002). · cites it 10× “See § 921.0024(2), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998). [6] Hall asserts that the Code violates due process because a defendant lacks proper notice of what the applicable statutory maximum would be at the time of the offense in that the number is not determined until after completion of a…”

Butler v. State, 838 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2003). · cites it 12× “2000), that "for those defendants who committed their crimes after October 1, 1998, section 921.0024(2), Florida Statutes (1999), provides that `if the lowest permissible sentence under the code exceeds the statutory maximum sentence as provided in s.”

Cedric Dennard v. State, 157 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). · cites it 24× “(1999) (court may direct that two or more of the sentences for offenses charged in the same information be served consecutively); § 921.0024(2), Fla. Stat. (1999) (providing, when imposing CPC sentences, that “[t]he sentencing court may impose such sentences concurrently or…”

Hector Colon v. State of Florida, 199 So. 3d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). · cites it 18× “” § 921.0024(2), Fla. Stat. (1999). Under the prior guidelines, the individual offenses were considered interrelated because together they were used to establish the minimum and maximum sentence that could be imposed.”

Hughes v. State, 901 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2005). · cites it 6× “5th DCA 1999) (which held that section 921.0024, Florida Statutes (1997), was constitutional because the judge's scoring of victim injury points constituted mere sentencing factors, not elements of the offense) vacated, 531 U.”

Sanders v. State, 35 So. 3d 864 (Fla. 2010). · cites it 6× “The Second District’s conclusion that an original sentencing scoresheet cannot be revised or recalculated for purposes of sentencing a defendant after a violation of probation is inconsistent with section 921.0024, Florida Statutes (1999), and our holding in Roberts v.”

Moore v. State, 882 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 2004). · cites it 4× “" § 921.0024(2), Fla. Stat. (2000). Conceptually, the CPC and the former sentencing guidelines are not synonymous, .”

Laisha L. Landrum v. State of Florida, 192 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 2016). · cites it 3× “3 years, before the defendant's prior criminal record and any statutory sentencing multipliers were taken into account).”

Tasker v. State, 48 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 2010). · cites it 7× “0021(7)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (2004), provides that if a conviction is for an offense involving sexual contact which does not include sexual penetration, the sexual contact must be scored on the Criminal Punishment Code sentencing scoresheet in accord with the provisions of…”

Nettles v. State, 850 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2003). · cites it 6× “" § 921.0024(2), Fla. Stat. (2000). The First District's decision in Nettles provides the relevant facts: On July 30, 2001, [Marvin Nettles] entered a plea to two counts of attempted lewd and lascivious conduct, a third-degree felony, in exchange for concurrent PRRPA and CPC…”

State v. Anderson, 905 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2005). · cites it 2× “See § 921.0024(2), Fla. Stat. (2003). Thus, any change reducing the total sentence points reduces the lowest permissible sentence.”

Show all 218 citing cases →

— 921.0024(1) — 4 cases

Lewis v. State, 952 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

Vitanzo v. State, 750 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Crim. Procedure 3.992 (Fla. 2025).

In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Crim. Procedure - 2025 Legislation (Fla. 2025).

— 921.0024(1)(6) — 1 case

Darst v. State, 816 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

— 921.0024(1)(a) — 16 cases

Champagne v. State, 269 So. 3d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019). “The postconviction court denied Champagne's motion, finding that section 921.0024 does not require the LPS to be imposed "only if it exceeds the statutory maximum for the primarily scored offense.”

Jonathan Somps v. State of Florida, 183 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

Smallridge v. State, 904 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

Rogers v. State, 963 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Timothy Barber v. State of Florida, 263 So. 3d 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

— 921.0024(1)(a)(2) — 1 case

Robert Sanders Mc Cray v. State of Florida (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).

— 921.0024(1)(b) — 19 cases

Brown v. State, 741 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

Timothy Turner v. State of Florida, 261 So. 3d 729 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).

In Re Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases—Report No. 2016-08, 211 So. 3d 995 (Fla. 2017).

Darst v. State, 816 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

Lewis v. State, 952 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

— 921.0024(2) — 130 cases

Hall v. State, 823 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2002). “See § 921.0024(2), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998). [6] Hall asserts that the Code violates due process because a defendant lacks proper notice of what the applicable statutory maximum would be at the time of the offense in that the number is not determined until after completion of a…”

Butler v. State, 838 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2003). “2000), that "for those defendants who committed their crimes after October 1, 1998, section 921.0024(2), Florida Statutes (1999), provides that `if the lowest permissible sentence under the code exceeds the statutory maximum sentence as provided in s.”

Cedric Dennard v. State, 157 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). “(1999) (court may direct that two or more of the sentences for offenses charged in the same information be served consecutively); § 921.0024(2), Fla. Stat. (1999) (providing, when imposing CPC sentences, that “[t]he sentencing court may impose such sentences concurrently or…”

Hector Colon v. State of Florida, 199 So. 3d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). “” § 921.0024(2), Fla. Stat. (1999). Under the prior guidelines, the individual offenses were considered interrelated because together they were used to establish the minimum and maximum sentence that could be imposed.”

— 921.0024(3) — 13 cases

Tasker v. State, 48 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 2010). “0021(7)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (2004), provides that if a conviction is for an offense involving sexual contact which does not include sexual penetration, the sexual contact must be scored on the Criminal Punishment Code sentencing scoresheet in accord with the provisions of…”

Jonathan Somps v. State of Florida, 183 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

Sanders v. State, 35 So. 3d 864 (Fla. 2010). “The Second District’s conclusion that an original sentencing scoresheet cannot be revised or recalculated for purposes of sentencing a defendant after a violation of probation is inconsistent with section 921.0024, Florida Statutes (1999), and our holding in Roberts v.”

State v. Hall, 47 So. 3d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

— 921.0024(4) — 2 cases

In Re Amendments to Cr. Pro.-Rule 3.704 & 3.992, 957 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 2007).

In Re Amendments to Fl. Rule of Crim. Proc. 3.992 (A), 992 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 2008).

— 921.0024(6) — 4 cases

In re Adoption of Florida Rules of Crim. Procedure 3.704 & 3.992 to Implement the Florida Crim. Punishment Code, 721 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1998).

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Crim. Procedure-2018 Regular-cycle Report., 265 So. 3d 494 (Fla. 2018).

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Crim. Procedure - 2018 Regular-Cycle Report (Fla. 2018).

Amendment to Florida Rule of Crim. Procedure 3.704(d)(23), 763 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1999).

— 921.0024(b) — 3 cases

Kenneth Whittaker v. State of Florida, 223 So. 3d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

Kelly Peterson Millien v. State of Florida (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).

Justin R. Jarvis v. State, 141 So. 3d 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).

— 921.0024(l)(a) — 7 cases

Fudge v. State, 791 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

State v. Hodges, 151 So. 3d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).

Kemner v. Hemphill, 199 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (N.D. Fla. 2002).

Hubard v. State, 17 So. 3d 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

— 921.0024(l)(b) — 16 cases

In Re Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases-instructions 7.8, 7.8(a), & 11.1-11.6(a), 190 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. 2016).

In Re Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases—Report No. 2016-08, 211 So. 3d 995 (Fla. 2017).

Cherington v. State, 24 So. 3d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

Amendments to Florida Rules of Crim. Procedure 3.704 & 3.992, 810 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 2001).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.