GARY LEWIS, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in computing the sentence by relying on hearsay for past convictions when their veracity was not disputed.
Appellant was convicted of burglary of a conveyance and sentenced as a habitual offender. The sentence was enhanced based on prior convictions, some c…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Corroboration Of Prior Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence for the offense of burglary of a conveyance, a third degree felony carrying a maximum statutory penalty of five years. The recommended guidelines sentence range was seven to nine years in prison. The trial court invoked the habitual offender statute and sentenced appellant to eight years in prison.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in computing his sentence by relying upon hearsay to determine the number of past convictions. We have carefully considered these contentions and find them to be without merit. There was no contention or dispute regarding the veracity of the alleged convictions (seven of which were corroborated by certified copies thereof). The cases hold that absent an attack on the truth of the statements or documents relied upon, corroboration is not required. Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1980); Vandeneynden v. State, 478 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
Appellant also objects to the use of the habitual offender statute to enhance his sentence, relying upon Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1986). We have, however, rejected his contention that Whitehead held the habitual offender statute no longer viable in our recent decision in King v. State, 511 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
Having found no demonstration of reversible error, we affirm the judgment and sentence appealed from.
DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur. ON MOTION TO CERTIFY
ORDERED that Appellant’s October 15, 1987 motion to certify question of great public importance is granted. The following question is certified to the Supreme Court of Florida:
IS THE HABITUAL OFFENDER STATUTE STILL AN EFFECTIVE BASIS ON WHICH TO EXCEED THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM AS LONG AS THE SENTENCE IMPOSED DOES NOT EXCEED THE GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION?
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McInerney v. State, 213 So. 3d 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…33 So. 3d at 1105 n.6 (citing Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219, 225 (Fla. 1980)). Indeed, we have held that absent an attack on the truth of hearsay statements or documents relied upon at sentencing, corroboration is not required. See Lewis v. State, 514 So. 2d 389, 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Rule 3.720(b) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure provides some guidance. It requires the court to “entertain submissions and evidence by the parties that are relevant to the sentence.” Here, the eyewitness’s statem…
-
Capers v. State, 567 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…lier conviction which was the predicate for a finding of habitual offender. When a defendant attacks the truth of the statements relied upon to impose habitual offender status, the state is required to produce corroborating evidence. Lewis v. State, 514 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA), dismissed, 518 So. 2d 1276 (Fla.1987). No such corroborating evidence appears in the record in this case. Appellant also questions the constitutionality of the statute. His position has previously been rejected by this court. See J…
-
Pabon v. State, 554 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…and for habitualization. The trial court also admitted a Xerox copy of a photograph taken in New York to further establish appellant’s identity. Appellant strongly disputed that he and “Andy Rivera” were one and the same person. In Lewis v. State, 514 So. 2d 389 (Fla.4th DCA 1987), cause dismissed, 518 So. 2d 1276 (Fla.1987), appellant argued that the trial court erred in computing his sentence by relying on hearsay to determine the number of past convictions. There was no dispute concerning the veracity of…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)
- Fredford James Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1980)
- Vandeneynden v. State, 478 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- King v. State, 511 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)