JAMES LOVETT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, V. JAMES ARTHUR LOVETT, 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.
Court reversed sentence enhancement based on uncorroborated hearsay computer printout of prior record where defendant objected to accuracy at sentencing, requiring state to provide corroborating evidence on remand.
When a defendant objects at sentencing to the accuracy of a prior record computer printout used to enhance sentence, the state must provide corroborating evidence before the printout data can be used.
[1] When a defendant objects at sentencing to the accuracy of a prior record computer printout, the state must provide corroborating evidence before the printout data may be…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“In such event the state must provide corroborating evidence before the data on the printout can be used to enhance the sentence.”
Court's statement of the legal requirement when defendant disputes printout accuracy
At sentencing, a computer printout was used to calculate points for prior record, resulting in a recommended sentence of 17-22 years. The defendant ob…
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 Prior Record cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
At sentencing, points because of a prior record were tabulated resulting in a recommended sentence of seventeen to twenty-two years in prison. The defendant appeals from the use of hearsay by way of computer printout and a telephone call to support the sentence meted out by the final judgment. We reverse and remand.
At the sentencing hearing, the defendant strongly objected to the authenticity of the printout information claiming that some of the charges listed thereon had been dropped and that in one instance there had been an acquittal rather than the conviction listed.
The defendant’s objection specifically disputed the correctness of the information on the printout. In such event the state must provide corroborating evidence before the data on the printout can be used to enhance the sentence. Smelley v. State, 500 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). On the other hand, if the objection to the printout (P.S.I. or whatever) is first raised at the sentencing hearing, the state must be given an opportunity to provide the corroboration. So far as we can determine from the record, the objections were first raised at sentencing. Accordingly, while we reverse and remand for resentencing, the state should be given a reasonable opportunity to provide the corroboration.
In all other respects, the cause is affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.
DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 549 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…rred in entering sentence without requiring the state to corroborate the prior convictions once the defendant had objected to the number of convictions shown on the score-sheet, see Smith v. State, 528 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Lovett v. State, 536 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Massalene v. State, 524 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), we are compelled to dismiss this appeal because the defendant has served both of his sentences and has been released. Any error in the scoring of his prior convictions on…
-
Mauney v. State, 553 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…e arid release from incarceration for some other transgression. Lee v. State, 537 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); see also Williams v. State, 484 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), affirmed, 504 So. 2d 392 (Fla.1987). It is true that in Lovett v. State, 536 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), we found hearsay testimony, as to a prior record, insufficient. However, in Lovett, the defense “strongly objected” to the hearsay testimony at sentencing. In the ease at bar, no objection was made, and because this involved the…
-
Israel v. State, 705 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. Appellant appeals his sentence following a criminal conviction. We affirm Appellant’s conviction. However, we accept the State’s concession of error regarding sentencing and reverse and remand for resentencing. See Lovett v. State, 536 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR RESEN-TENCING. STONE, C.J., and GUNTHER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Smelley v. State, 500 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)