GREGORY CAMERON, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the summary denial of Cameron's Rule 3.850 postconviction motion challenging his habitual offender sentence based on the use of hearsay evidence. The court held that documents from the Parole Commission were admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule and that the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses does not apply at sentencing.
The court affirmed the summary denial, holding that the Parole Commission documents were admissible as public records under the hearsay exception, and that Cameron's claim was procedurally barred because it could have been raised on direct appeal. Additionally, the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses does not apply at the sentencing stage.
[1] A claim that a habitual offender sentence was improperly imposed through the use of hearsay evidence is procedurally barred if the issue could have been raised on direct…
[2] Documents from the Parole Commission may be admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 Sixth Amendment right of a defendant to confront the witnesses against him or her is part of the right to a trial by jury when determining guilt and does not apply at the sentencing stage”
Establishes that confrontation rights are limited to guilt determination and do not extend to sentencing proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCameron was sentenced as a habitual offender. At sentencing, the trial court used a letter and affidavit under seal from the Parole Commission to esta…
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 Public Records Exception To Hearsay cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
We affirm the order summarily denying appellant’s motion for Rule 3.850 postcon-viction relief. We write to address his claim that his habitual offender sentence was improperly imposed through the use of hearsay evidence.
Appellant claims that the court erred in using hearsay evidence in the form of a letter and affidavit under seal from the Parole Commission to prove his prison release date for purposes of habitual offender sentencing. This claim is procedurally barred, because appellant’s counsel actually objected to this at trial, and therefore the issue could have been raised on appeal. Nevertheless, we have recently determined that similar documents are admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule. See Yisrael v. State, 938 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Thus, the claim has no merit.
Further, appellant claims that using these documents violates his right to confront witnesses against him under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). However, the Sixth Amendment right of a defendant to confront the witnesses against him or her is part of the right to a trial by jury when determining guilt and does not apply at the sentencing stage. See United States v. Rodriguez, 897 F. 2d 1324 (5th Cir.1990) (holding that a defendant’s confrontation rights at sentencing hearing are severely restricted, and the court may rely upon uncontradicted hearsay testimony and even on an out-of-court statement by an unidentified informant); see also Williams v. Clarke, 823 F.Supp. 1486 (D.Neb.1993), aff'd, 40 F. 3d 1529 (8th Cir.1994) (holding that the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses does not apply to sentencing proceedings; at most, due process clause requires only that defendant have access to presentence report and opportunity to rebut, by explanation or denial, any inaccurate information in report).
The remaining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are either refuted by the record or insufficient in that appellant has failed to show how he was prejudiced by counsel’s conduct.
Affirmed.
GUNTHER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Young v. State, 33 So. 3d 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…d co-defendant, a summary of which appears in the trial record, the court would not have fundamentally erred or erred at all, for that matter. The Sixth Amendment right of confrontation does not apply in sentencing proceedings. See Cameron v. State, 943 So. 2d 938, 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). As Justice Cantero noted in concurring in Rodgers v. State, 948 So. 2d 655, 674 (Fla.2006), “Virtually every federal appellate court has recently addressed the issue and has reaffirmed the longstanding principle that the Co…
-
Grange v. State, 199 So. 3d 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…basis to vacate that judgment. Id. at 333-34. This Court also has recognized that the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation does not apply in sentencing proceedings. Young v. State, 33 So. 3d 151, 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citing Cameron v. State, 943 So. 2d 938, 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). In Cameron, this Court said that “the Sixth Amendment right of a defendant to confront the witnesses against him or her is part of the right to a trial by jury when determining guilt and does not apply at the sentencing sta…
-
Sharlow v. State, 950 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…PER CURIAM. See Cameron v. State, 943 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Russell v. State, 920 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. granted, 926 So. 2d 1270 (Fla.2006). AFFIRMED. GRIFFIN, PALMER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004)
- Mitchell v. State, 938 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 897 F.2d 1324 (5th Cir. 1990)