WILLIAM MOORE, 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.
William Moore appeals his conviction and sentence for burglary of a conveyance, attempted burglary of a conveyance, and petit theft. The appellate court affirmed his convictions but reversed his violent career criminal sentence and classification as a habitual offender, finding the State failed to present sufficient evidence of the requisite prior convictions at sentencing.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the continuance and discharge of counsel motion, but reversed Moore's violent career criminal sentence and classification, finding the State failed to introduce evidence of the requisite prior convictions meeting the statutory requirements.
[1] A trial court may impose a habitual felony offender sentence only upon finding that the defendant has been previously convicted of at least two felonies and that the curr…
[2] To be sentenced as a violent career criminal, the State must present evidence of at least three prior adult convictions for offenses enumerated in the relevant statute.
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“To be sentenced as a violent career criminal, the State must present evidence that the defendant had been convicted as an adult three or more times for an offense enumerated in the applicable statute.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for violent career criminal sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMoore was convicted by jury of one count of burglary of a conveyance, one count of attempted burglary of a conveyance, and one count of petit theft. T…
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 Attempted Burglary Of A Conveyance cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1064] POLEN, J.
Appellant, William Moore, a.k.a. Erie Jones, appeals a final order of judgment and conviction. Following a jury trial, Moore was convicted of one count of burglary of a conveyance, one count of attempted burglary of a conveyance, and one count of petit theft. The trial court declared Moore a violent career criminal and a habitual offender, and sentenced him to fifteen years in prison for count one, ten years in prison for count two, sixty days for count three, all sentences to run concurrently. Moore raises two issues on appeal. We affirm the trial court’s denial of Moore’s motion for a continuance and discharge of counsel, but find merit in Moore’s sentencing argument. We reverse Moore’s sentence and classification as a violent career criminal, and remand for re-sentencing.
To impose a habitual felony offender sentence, the trial court must find based on record evidence, that the defendant has been previously convicted of any combination of two or more felonies and that the current felony occurred either (a) while the defendant was serving a prison sentence or lawfully imposed supervision as a result of a prior felony conviction; or (b) within five years from the date of conviction for the defendant’s last prior felony or within five years from the date of the defendant’s release from prison or supervision for a prior felony offense.
Boyd v. State, 776 So. 2d 317, 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). To be sentenced as a violent career criminal, the State must present evidence that the defendant had been convicted as an adult three or more times for an offense enumerated in the applicable statute. See § 775.084(l)(d)l-6. The State cannot simply refer to evidence introduced at an earlier sentencing hearing. See Rich v. State, 814 So. 2d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The trial court can rely upon certified copies of convictions and original court records in making the determination. Slade v. State, 898 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
After careful review of the record, we find the State has failed to introduce evidence of the requisite prior convictions. The convictions relied on in the sentencing hearing do not constitute convictions for felonies listed under section 776.08, Florida Statutes. Only two of the convictions relied upon by the State would qualify to classify Moore as a violent career criminal. While there is one other conviction found in the supplemental record that would be sufficient to constitute the third offense, this conviction was neither listed nor relied upon at the sentencing hearing. Therefore, we reverse Moore’s sentence for Count I, and remand to the trial court for re-sentencing. Puskac v. State, 872 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (on remand, State has the right to introduce evidence of other qualifying convictions).
STEVENSON, C.J., and STONE, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moncus v. State, 69 So. 3d 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…ed States, 260 F. 2d 498 (10th Cir.1958). In contrast, a trial court can rely on nothing but certified copies and official court records at sentencing to determine, for example, whether a defendant qualifies for an enhanced sentence. Moore v. State, 944 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Slade v. State, 898 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). As due process does not require a prior conviction to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt when it is not an element of the offense, see Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 12…
-
State v. Leeroy Wayne Barfield, 995 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…on in writing whether or not it’s a felony or a misdemeanor”— the State failed to produce evidence of a prior felony withholding. Generally speaking, the State has the burden of proving prior convictions under Florida law. See, e.g., Moore v. State, 944 So. 2d 1063, 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (recognizing that the State must introduce evidence of prior convictions such as certified copies of convictions and/or original court records); Lyons v. State, 823 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (recognizing that the state…
-
Alcantara v. State, 39 So. 3d 535 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…den. See, e.g., Bodie v. State, 983 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (State must present sufficient evidence, such as fingerprints or photograph, to establish that defendant is, in fact, person referenced in computer records); see also Moore v. State, 944 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (trial court can rely upon certified copies of convictions and original court records but State cannot simply refer to evidence introduced in separate sentencing proceeding). Furthermore, the State failed to present evidence that…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Boyd v. State, 776 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Rich v. State, 814 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Puskac v. State, 872 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Slade v. State, 898 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)