PAUL O. STOVALL, 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.
Paul Stovall was convicted of armed escape, battery on a law enforcement officer, aggravated assault, armed kidnapping, and firearm possession by a convicted felon arising from an incident where he escaped custody at a hospital, assaulted an officer, and took hostages. The appellate court affirmed most convictions but reversed the firearm possession conviction due to insufficient proof of the defendant's identity with the prior conviction record.
The court affirmed all convictions except possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The conviction for firearm possession was reversed because the state failed to prove that the defendant was the same person named in the prior conviction judgment—mere identity between names on the prior judgment and the defendant at trial does not satisfy the state's obligation to present affirmative evidence of identity.
[1] A conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon requires proof of the defendant's identity as the perpetrator of a prior felony, not just a name match with…
[2] The state must present affirmative evidence to prove the identity of the defendant as the person named in a prior felony judgment when prosecuting for possession of a fir…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the state must prove the historical fact of a prior felony conviction and the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator”
Establishes the two-part test required for firearm possession by convicted felon prosecution
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStovall was taken to Halifax Hospital after attempting to ingest drugs during a sting operation. While in custody, he threw medication in the face of …
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 Prima Facie Case Elements cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
Stovall was convicted of armed escape, battery upon a law enforcement officer, depriving an officer of means of protection or communication, three counts of aggravated assault upon a law enforcement officer, three counts of armed kidnaping, two counts of aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The charges arose from an incident in which Stovall, after being taken to Halifax Hospital after he attempted to ingest drugs during a sting operation, escaped from the officer guarding him after throwing medication in her face and striking her and taking her firearm and walkie-talkie. He then took hostages. During the hostage situation, Stovall pointed the firearm at other officers.
We affirm Stovall’s convictions except for the count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Although the state introduced a certified copy of a prior conviction of “Paul O’Neil Stovall” over Stovall’s objection as to predicate, there was no showing that defendant was the Stovall referred to in the judgment of conviction received in evidence.
As held in Killingsworth v. State, 584 So. 2d 647, 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991):
As part of its prima facie case in a prosecution for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, the state must prove that the defendant has previously been convicted of a felony. To do this, the state must prove the historical fact of a prior felony conviction and the identity of the defen dant as the perpetrator. (Citation omitted.) Although the historical fact of a prior felony conviction can be proved by introducing a certified copy of a prior felony judgment (citation omitted), 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 ... 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 the person named in the judgment was never satisfactorily proved in the state’s case in chief ... Therefore, the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion for judgement of acquittal on the count charging him with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
Such is the case before us; we therefore reverse on the authority of Killingsworth.
Stovall also urges the trial court erred in making his habitual offender sentences run consecutively. See Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993). Because of our holding in Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. granted, 718 So. 2d 169 (Fla.1998), we do not consider the issue.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED for further action consistent with this opinion.
COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mason v. State, 853 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…. “[A]n order on a motion for a judgment of acquittal is reviewed by the de novo standard.” Jones v. State, 790 So. 2d 1194, 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). The trial court’s denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal was error. See Stovall v. State, 727 So. 2d 1009, 1009-10 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (reversing conviction for possession of firearm by a convicted felon because a certified copy of a prior felony conviction with defendant’s name on it did not establish the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator); Monso…
-
Stovall v. State, 768 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 2000)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Stovall v. State, 727 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), a decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal citing as controlling authority its decision in Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), approved in part, disapproved in part, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000). We have juris…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Killingsworth v. State, 584 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)