TODD WILLIAM ROBBINS, A/K/A JAMES ALLEN WATSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellant Robbins appealed his guidelines sentence, challenging the trial court's reliance on uncorroborated hearsay statements in the pre-sentence investigation report regarding the nature of prior Virginia burglary convictions. The court held that when a defendant disputes specific statements in a PSI, the state must corroborate them or the uncertainty must be resolved in the defendant's favor.
Yes. When a defendant disputes the truth of specifically identified statements in a PSI, the trial court must require the state to corroborate those statements. When uncertainty exists regarding how to score out-of-state convictions, the uncertainty must be resolved in favor of the defendant.
[1] A trial court must require the State to corroborate disputed hearsay statements in a pre-sentence investigation report when determining the degree of prior felony convict…
[2] When the degree of a prior felony conviction is ambiguous or impossible to determine, it should be scored as a third-degree felony.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When the defendant disputes the truth of specifically identified statements in a P.S.I., the trial court must require the State to corroborate those statements.”
Establishes the core legal standard that disputed PSI statements require state corroboration
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobbins had two prior burglary convictions from Virginia classified as 'statutory burglaries.' The parties agreed that if these were burglaries of dwe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
ORFINGER, Judge.
This is an appeal from a guidelines sentence. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in relying upon disputed hearsay statements in the pre-sentence investigation report in determining the degree of prior felony convictions. We agree and vacate the sentence.
At the sentencing hearing a dispute arose over how to score two prior convictions of burglary which occurred in Virginia. The convictions were called “statutory burglaries” under Virginia law. The parties agreed that if the “statutory burglaries” were burglaries of a dwelling then they would be scored as second degree felonies and if the burglaries were burglaries of a structure they would be scored as third degree felonies. The difference in the degree results in a one cell difference in the recommended range on the score- sheet. The defense objected to the hearsay-statement in the P.S.I. and specifically disputed that portion of the report which represented the burglaries to be of dwellings. The court found that the burglaries in Virginia were burglaries of dwellings, based on the pre-sentence report, and scored the prior convictions as second degree felonies.
The State concedes that the issue was preserved for appeal and that the State offered nothing to corroborate the statement in the P.S.I. that the burglaries had involved dwellings. When the defendant disputes the truth of specifically identified statements in a P.S.I., the trial court must require the State to corroborate those statements. See Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1980); Vandeneynden v. State, 478 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
The Virginia statute which the State now suggests is controlling was not before the trial court. However, it is apparent that under the Virginia statute the Virginia convictions could correspond to either second degree or third degree felonies under Florida law, depending upon the facts surrounding the offenses. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(5)(a)(2) and (3) provide:
2) When scoring federal, foreign, military, or out-of-state convictions, assign the score for the analogous or parallel Florida statute.
3) When unable to determine whether an offense at conviction is a felony or misdemeanor, the offense should be scored as a misdemeanor. Where the degree of the felony is ambiguous or impossible to determine, score the offense as a third-degree felony. [Emphasis added].
The committee note to this section provides, “Any uncertainty in the scoring of the defendant’s prior record shall be resolved in favor of the defendant, and disagreement as to the propriety of scoring specific entries in the prior record should be resolved by the trial judge.” Thus, because the hearsay statement in the P.S.I. was disputed and there was uncertainty over how to score the “statutory burglaries,” either the State should have been required to produce corroborating evidence reflecting the facts of the Virginia crimes or the uncertainty should have been resolved in favor of the defendant by scoring the Virginia burglaries as third degree felonies. See Rodriguez v. State, 472 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
The sentence is vacated and the cause is remanded for resentencing, with directions to require the State to corroborate the precise nature of the prior Virginia convictions or else to score them both as third degree felonies.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
COBB, C.J., and SHARP, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Disinger v. State, 526 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…entitled to have the record set straight. See Coleman v. State, 483 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). With respect to the out-of-state convictions, the State must corroborate the degree of convictions which were disputed by appellant. Robbins v. State, 482 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Vandeneynden v. State, 478 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The convictions are affirmed, as are the sentences on the sexual battery charges. The sentence on the indecent assault charge is vacated and the cause is remanded for r…
-
Forehand v. State, 524 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…5th DCA 1988); Samples v. State, 516 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Frazier v. State, 515 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Armontrout v. State, 503 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Noland v. State, 489 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Robbins v. State, 482 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Rodriguez v. State, 472 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Arquilla v. State, 464 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). But see Weakland v. State, 520 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Doner v. State, 515 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). W…1 / 2
-
Armontrout v. State, 503 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…nt disputes the truth of specifically identified statements in a presentence investigation report the trial court must [*985] require that the state corroborate those statements. Morris v. State, 483 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Robbins v. State, 482 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Vandeneynden v. State, 478 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Armontrout contends that he never went to court on the assault charge, however, the presentence investigation clearly shows that he was adjudicated guilty of disorderly…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fredford James Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1980)
- Vandeneynden v. State, 478 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Rodriguez v. State, 472 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)