STEVEN BRENT HAMILTON, 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.
Trial court erred in sentencing Hamilton without requiring the State to corroborate disputed prior convictions on the sentencing guidelines scoresheet; sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing.
When a defendant disputes the accuracy of prior convictions scored on a sentencing guidelines scoresheet, the trial court must require the State to present corroborating evidence of those convictions before sentencing.
[1] When a defendant disputes prior convictions scored on a sentencing guidelines scoresheet, the trial court must require the State to provide corroborating evidence of thos…
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“where defendant disputes the convictions scored as part of his prior record, the state must provide corroborating evidence of those convictions to ensure the accuracy of the seoresheet”
Johnson v. State, establishing the requirement for State corroboration when prior convictions are disputed
Hamilton was sentenced based on a sentencing guidelines scoresheet that included prior convictions and legal status information that he disputed as in…
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.
Steven Brent Hamilton (Hamilton) contends, and the State properly concedes, that the trial court erred in sentencing him without an accurate, verified sentencing guidelines seoresheet. Hamilton clearly disputed the accuracy of certain convictions scored as part of his prior record, as well as his legal status at the time of committing the present offenses. The trial court did not require the State to present any evidence corroborating these issues. Johnson v. State, 583 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)(where defendant disputes the convictions scored as part of his prior record, the state must provide corroborating evidence of those convictions to ensure the accuracy of the seoresheet); L’Homme v. State, 518 So. 2d 408, 409-410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)(“[i]f a defendant challenges the truthfulness of prior offenses listed on a guidelines seoresheet and the only evidence of those offenses is hearsay, the trial court must require the State to provide corroboration of the past convictions”). We vacate the sentence and remand to the trial court for resentencing, with directions that the State be given an opportunity to corroborate the challenged convictions and Hamilton’s legal status, before he is resentenced pursuant to an accurate, verified scoresheet.
SENTENCE VACATED and REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
ERVIN, WOLF and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Calhoun v. State, 721 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…illey v. Harris, 354 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). On the merits, the state properly concedes that appellant is entitled to be resen-tenced because the trial court did not require corroboration of the prior convictions listed. Hamilton v. State, 658 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Accordingly, we vacate appellant’s sentence and remand for re-sentencing. On remand, the state shall be given an opportunity to corroborate any pri- or convictions challenged by appellant before appellant is resentenced using an…
-
Brown v. State, 695 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…When a defendant challenges prior convictions and the accuracy of the score-sheet, the state has the burden of producing competent evidence of the disputed convictions. Watson v. State, 591 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). See also Hamilton v. State, 658 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Moss v. State, 581 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The state failed to meet this burden. Additionally, we note that the seoresheet for circuit court case number 94-13884 contained a mathematical error which incorrectly added twe…
-
Farmer v. State, 709 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…rd conclusively refutes and therefore we reverse. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(i); see also Brye v. State, 677 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). As appellant correctly points out, these types of documents are merely hearsay. See, e.g., Hamilton v. State, 658 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); L’Homme v. State, 518 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (if the truthfulness of a prior offense is challenged and the only evidence thereof is hearsay, corroboration of that pri- or conviction is required). On remand, the trial cou…
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
- Johnson v. State, 583 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- L'Homme v. State, 518 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)