JESSIE THOMAS, 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.
The court affirmed the judgments for operating a chop shop and grand theft but vacated the habitual felony offender sentences due to the state's failure to prove the defendant's identity in prior convictions.
The appellant was convicted of operating a chop shop and grand theft. During deliberations, a juror presented unauthorized statutes, leading to a mist…
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 Proof Of Identity cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.
The appellant challenges judgments and sentences for operating a chop shop, in violation of section 812.16(2), Florida Statutes (1997), and grand theft, in violation of section 812.014(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1997). He claims the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial after a juror presented unauthorized copies of unrelated statutes for discussion during deliberations. He also claims the trial court erred in sentencing him as a habitual felony offender without requiring the State to prove he was the person reflected in the prior convictions. We affirm the judgments but vacate the sentences and remand for further proceedings.
After examining the record, we are convinced that there is no reasonable possibility the unauthorized materials that were present in the jury room affected the verdict. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant’s motions for mistrial and new trial. See Stewart v. State, 664 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
The appellant also challenges the habitual felony offender sentences imposed on both counts. The State presented certified copies of judgments for the predicate felonies. At the sentencing hearing, the appellant objected that the State had failed to prove he was the person reflected on the judgments for those predicate felonies. Despite this objection, the State failed to present any evidence to identify the appellant as the person to whom the prior convictions applied. We therefore vacate the habitual felony offender sentences and remand for resentencing. On remand, the trial court may again sentence the appellant as a habitual felony offender if the State establishes his identity as the person named in the predicate judgments of conviction. See Brown v. State, 701 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
Judgments affirmed; sentences vacated and remanded.
PARKER and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ransom Louis Collins v. State, 893 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…xisted that would satisfy the sequential conviction requirement”); Lloyd v. State, 844 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Davis v. State, 588 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). . For reasons that are not clear, the decision of the panel in Thomas v. State, 805 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), appears to be at odds with the holding in Reynolds where the court first addressed this issue. Thomas has, however, effectively been superseded by Rivera and Wallace. See Little v. State, 206 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1968) (stating that wh…
Authorities Cited
- Gale Lavern Brown v. State, 701 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Stewart v. State, 664 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)