In Hummel v. State, 782 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), the defendant filed a motion under rule 3.800(a), claiming that her sentencing scoresheet contained a seven-point error-that is, her prior record points should have numbered nineteen, not twenty-six. Hummel, 782 So. 2d at 451. With a corrected scoresheet, she claimed her sentencing range would have been reduced by one cell. The First District Court of Appeal agreed that the record supported her claim, but nevertheless denied relief: This Court has previously held that "where a guidelines scoresheet error results in a reduced sentencing range of one cell or more, the sentence must be reversed and the case remanded for resentencing based upon a correctly calculated scoresheet." Burrows v. State, 649 So. 2d 902, 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). A scoresheet error is harmless, however, where a corrected scoresheet places the appellant in the same cell or where the appellant would have received the same sentence, such as in plea bargain situations. See id. However, in Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000), the supreme court announced a new harmless error analysis to be applied in dealing with scoresheet inaccuracies. Using the Heggs rationale, we conclude that if a person's sentence imposed under an erroneous scoresheet could have been imposed under a corrected scoresheet (without a departure) then that person shall not be entitled to resentencing. 782 So. 2d at 451. Because under a corrected scoresheet, Hummel's "recommended sentence would be the same as imposed and the imposed sentence would be within the new range," the appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of relief. Id.