ALTON FREDDIE MILLER, 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.
Miller was convicted by jury of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon based on a prior conviction established solely by a certified judgment showing the same name. The appellate court reversed, holding that Florida law requires affirmative evidence of identity beyond mere name similarity to connect a defendant with a prior conviction.
Florida law requires affirmative evidence of identity in addition to similar names to connect an accused with a prior conviction. Mere proof of identity of names is insufficient. The trial court erred in allowing name similarity alone to establish the prior conviction element.
[1] A prior conviction is a substantive element that the state must prove in a prosecution for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
[2] In Florida, the identity of an accused with the person named in documentation of a prior conviction must be established by affirmative evidence, and mere proof of identit…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A prior conviction is a substantive element to be proved by the state in prosecuting a defendant charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.”
Establishes that the prior conviction is a required element of the offense that the prosecution must affirmatively prove
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe state introduced a certified copy of a prior judgment and sentence for 'Freddie Miller' to prove the appellant was a convicted felon. The appellan…
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 Waiver Of Right To Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
Alton Freddie Miller appeals his conviction by a jury of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. We reverse.
The appellant first challenges the trial court’s order denying his motion to suppress the firearm. He failed to object to the introduction of the firearm into evidence at trial, however, and thereby waived his right to appeal this issue. See Rodriguez v. State, 433 So. 2d 1273, 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The appellant next challenges the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal.
At trial, the state introduced a certified copy of a prior judgment and sentence on one Freddie Miller to prove that the appellant was a convicted felon. The appellant objected on the ground that the state had failed to show that he was the same person named in the prior judgment and sentence.
The trial court overruled the appellant’s objection declaring that the similarity of names was sufficient, with the burden then shifting to the appellant to show that it was someone else. The appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal based on the same argument was denied. The state did not introduce any other evidence to prove the prior convictions.
A prior conviction is a substantive element to be proved by the state in prosecuting a defendant charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Harris v. State, 449 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Analogous Florida cases hold that the identity of the accused with the person named in the documentation of a prior conviction must be proved by additional evidence. In State v. Harris, 356 So. 2d 315, 317 (Fla.1978), the supreme court held that in the prosecution of a subsequent petit theft, the historical fact of the prior conviction and questions regarding identity shall be determined by the court in accord with general principles of law. In Barnhill v. State, 41 So. 2d 329, 332 (Fla.1949), the supreme court held that proof of a prior conviction in a second prosecution of a beverage law violation must establish the historical fact of the prior conviction and the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator. There are two lines of authority on the sufficiency of a name to establish the identity of an accused with the person named in the documentation of a prior conviction. Annotation, Evidence of Identity for Purposes of Statute as to Enhanced Punishment in Case of Prior Conviction, 11 A.L. R.2d 870 § 7 (1950).
One line of authority, which the trial judge relied on, holds that identity of the name of the accused and the person previously convicted, in the absence of rebuttal, supports a finding of identity. Florida, however, has followed the line of authority that holds that the identity of an accused must be established by affirmative evidence, mere proof of identity of names being insufficient. Id. at 887, § 9; Clinton v. State, 143 Fla. 356, 196 So. 684 (1940); Thompson v. State, 66 Fla. 206, 63 So. 423 (1913).
We hold that Clinton and Thompson require proof of identity in addition to similar names to connect an accused with a prior conviction. See also Dowling v. State, 210 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). We therefore reverse the trial court’s denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal and remand this case to the trial court with instructions to discharge the appellant.
Reversed and remanded.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Killingsworth v. State, 584 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…73 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), mere identity between the name appearing on the prior judgment and the name of the defendant on trial does not satisfy the state’s obligation to present affirmative evidence that they are the same person. See Miller v. State, 573 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), and authorities cited therein. Because the certified copy of the judgment introduced in the trial below was the only evidence offered by the state to prove that the appellant was a convicted felon, the appellant’s identity as th…
-
Louis v. State, 647 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…is sentence and remand for resentencing. The state must establish by affirmative evidence the identity of the accused as the person previously convicted of the predicate crimes. See Ruth v. State, 574 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Miller v. State, 573 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Here, a fingerprint expert testified, based on a comparison of Louis’s fingerprints from the present cases with those in two previous cases, that Louis was that same person who had previously been adjudicated guilty of the qualif…
-
Moncus v. State, 69 So. 3d 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…name of the defendant, is insufficient. Mason v. State, 853 So. 2d 544, 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Instead, the State must present affirmative evidence that the defendant and the person named on the prior judgment are the same person. Miller v. State, 573 So. 2d 405, 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). This requirement is rooted in the requirement that the State prove the defendant guilty of every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Gravatt v. United States, 260 F. 2d 498 (10th Cir.1958). In contrast, a trial…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Harris, 356 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1978)
- Harrison Thompson v. State, 66 Fla. 206 (Fla. 1913)
- Barnhill v. State, 41 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1949)
- Isidro Rodriguez v. State, 433 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Lilton B. Harris v. State, 449 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Dowling v. State, 210 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Clinton v. State, 143 Fla. 356 (Fla. 1940)