RODNEY G. HENDERSON, 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.
Henderson appealed his habitual offender sentence imposed following a guilty plea to burglary, arguing insufficient evidence supported findings regarding the validity of prior convictions. The court affirmed, holding that once the state provides certified copies of prior convictions, the defendant bears the burden of presenting contrary evidence, and the trial court may presume convictions remain valid absent such evidence.
The trial court's findings were supported by competent evidence. Once the state provides certified copies of prior convictions, the burden shifts to the defendant to present contrary evidence. When the defendant presents no contrary evidence and stipulates to the validity of the convictions, the trial court may presume the convictions remain valid, which presumption is a sufficient basis for findings that they have not been pardoned or set aside.
[1] When the state presents competent proof of requisite prior felony convictions for habitual offender sentencing, the burden shifts to the defendant to provide evidence to…
[2] A trial court may presume prior felony convictions remain valid if the defendant fails to present evidence that they have been pardoned or set aside.
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“once the state provides competent proof of the requisite convictions, such as by introducing certified copies of the prior judgments, the burden shifts to the defendant to provide evidence to the contrary”
Establishes the allocation of burden of proof regarding validity of prior convictions in habitual offender sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenderson pleaded nolo contendere to burglary in exchange for a three-year habitual offender sentence. At sentencing, the state presented certified co…
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 Burden Of Proof In Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Rodney G. Henderson has appealed from the imposition of an habitual offender sentence, following his plea of nolo contendere to burglary in return for a three-year habitual offender sentence. He alleges that the sentence must be reversed, in that there was no evidence to support the trial court’s findings as to section 775.084(l)(a)3. and 4., Florida Statutes (1989). We affirm.
At the sentencing proceeding following the trial court’s acceptance of Henderson’s •plea, the state presented certified copies of the prior felony convictions required by section 775.084(l)(a)l., which Henderson stipulated were valid. The trial judge sentenced Henderson consistently with the plea agreement as an habitual offender, and later entered a written order making all of the findings set forth at section 775.-084(l)(a)l.-4., i.e., Henderson had the requisite prior felony convictions, the instant crime was committed within five years of the last prior felony conviction, and the prior felonies had been neither pardoned nor set aside in post-conviction proceedings.
Henderson argues on appeal that the sentence must be reversed in that there was no evidence to support the findings as to section 775.084(l)(a)3. and 4. However, this court recently held in Jones v. State, 606 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) that, once the state provides competent proof of the requisite convictions, such as by introducing certified copies of the prior judgments, the burden shifts to the defendant to provide evidence to the contrary. If he does not, the trial court can presume the convictions still to be valid, which presumption is a sufficient basis for a finding that the convictions have not been set aside or pardoned. Jones at 713.
In this case, the state introduced certified copies of the prior felony judgments on which it intended to rely, and Henderson presented no contrary evidence. Indeed, he stipulated to the validity of the convictions. Therefore, under Jones, the trial court could presume the convictions still to be valid, which presumption was a sufficient basis for its findings that they had not been pardoned or set aside. We therefore affirm the habitual offender sentence imposed herein.
Affirmed.
JOANOS, C.J., and ALLEN and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…ponsibility to bring to the court’s attention evidence that a prior conviction used in imposing habitual offender status was set aside or otherwise would not qualify. See Weems v. State, 645 So. 2d 1098, 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Henderson v. State, 611 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Appellant did not meet that burden in this case. Affirmed. TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
-
Whitfield v. State, 801 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Henderson v. State, 611 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). GRIFFIN, PALMER and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- William v. Jones, 606 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)