JAMES RICH, 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 reversed a habitual violent felony offender sentence because the state failed to provide adequate record evidence of the dates required to establish the predicate offense within the statutory time frame.
A habitual violent felony offender sentence under section 775.084(1)(b) must be supported by record evidence of the dates establishing that a prior offense occurred within five years of the instant offense, and counsel's statements alone are insufficient to meet this burden.
[1] A habitual violent felony offender sentence requires the state to establish by record evidence that a prior offense occurred within the statutory time frame, and counsel'…
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 intelligenceRich was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender based on the state's reliance on either his last release from state prison or his probation s…
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.
We reverse Appellant’s sentence as a habitual violent felony offender, under section 775.084(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and remand for re-sentencing.
At the sentencing hearing, the state relied upon either Appellant’s last release from state prison or the fact that Appellant was on probation within five years of committing the instant offense. Because the state is required to provide record evidence of the dates in question, we cannot affirm on this record, notwithstanding that the dates are likely to be within the required time frame.
We recognize that it appears from the date of the offense and the prosecutor’s comments to the court that such is the case, and that Appellant was on probation following his release from prison when he committed this crime. However, this statement by counsel, alone, is insufficient to meet the state’s burden. See, e.g., Sanders v. State, 765 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Further, although the record shows that the prosecution asked the court to take judicial notice of a court file, the record is silent as to the content of that file or whether the court, in fact, did so.
As we cannot determine what evidence was before the trial court, on remand, the court may again consider imposing a habitual violent felony offender sentence.
STONE, POLEN, JJ., and ROSENBERG, ROBERT, Associate Judge, concur.