TROY DAVENPORT, 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.
Troy Davenport appealed his conviction for burglary of a dwelling and his 30-year sentence as an habitual felony offender (HFO) and prison releasee reoffender (PRR). The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction but reversed the HFO/PRR sentencing because the trial court failed to properly enter evidence of prior convictions into the record, despite being permitted to take judicial notice of its own files.
The trial court erred in sentencing Davenport as an HFO and PRR because although trial courts may take judicial notice of their own files, they must place such evidence in the record of each case when sentencing a defendant as an HFO and PRR. The sentencing was reversed and remanded for resentencing.
[1] A trial court may take judicial notice of its own files when sentencing a defendant as an habitual felony offender or prison releasee reoffender, but must place evidence…
[2] A conviction will be affirmed when the appellate court finds no error in the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal or in the jury instructions.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It is permissible for a trial court to take judicial notice of its own files, but the trial judge has to put such evidence in the record of each case when sentencing a defendant as an HFO and PRR.”
Establishes the core legal principle that while judicial notice is permitted, the trial court must enter evidence into the record to properly support HFO and PRR sentencing.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavenport was charged with burglary of a dwelling and proceeded to jury trial, resulting in a guilty verdict. The State sought HFO and PRR designation…
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 Prison Releasee Reoffender (Prr) Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, J.
Appellant Troy Davenport appeals a conviction of burglary of a dwelling and sentence of 30 years as an habitual felony offender (HFO) and prison releasee reof-fender (PRR) with credit for 348 days time served. He argues that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, (2) the jury instructions on the elements of burglary constitute fundamental error, and (3) the trial court erred in sentencing Davenport as an HFO and PRR. We affirm Davenport’s conviction without further comment on the first two issues. We reverse the trial court’s finding that Davenport qualified to be sentenced as an HFO and PRR because there is no evidence in the record to support it.
Davenport was charged by information with burglary of a dwelling. The State filed notices of its intent to seek to have Davenport declared an HFO and PRR. The case proceeded to trial by jury. The jury returned a verdict finding Davenport guilty. Davenport was also facing charges in two other related cases, which were resolved by way of a negotiated plea. In the related plea cases, the trial court (the same judge as in the instant case) declared Davenport a PRR and an HFO.
At sentencing for the instant case, the trial court purported to take judicial notice of its own files in the related plea cases, wherein certified copies of convictions were entered. The trial court sentenced Davenport to 30 years with credit for 348 days time served. A 15-year minimum mandatory was imposed as a result of qualifying as a PRR. Davenport argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him as an HFO and PRR without sufficient proof. He claims that no proof of his prior convictions or the date of his release were admit ted into evidence at the sentencing hearing.
It is permissible for a trial court to take judicial notice of its own files, but the trial judge has to put such evidence in the record of each case when sentencing a defendant as an HFO and PRR. See § 775.084(l)(a)2.a., Fla. Stat. (2007); see also Boyd v. State, 776 So. 2d 317, 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Certified copies of convictions or the contents of other files would suffice, but the trial court failed to put either in the record in this case. We therefore reverse and remand for resentencing.
Reversed and Remanded.
STONE and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dean v. State, 230 So. 3d 420 (Fla. 2017)…ony murder. III. PRR SENTENCES We quash the Fourth District’s holding regarding Dean’s PRR sentences and remand for resentencing because his designation as a PRR is not supported by the evidence in the record in this case.3 See Davenport v. State, 971 So. 2d 293, 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“It is permissible for a trial court to take judicial notice of its own files, but the trial judge has to put such evidence, in the record of each case when sentencing a defendant as an HFO and PRR.”), rev. denied, 993 So.…
-
Quispe v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…ee reoffender”); Gray v. State, 910 So. 2d 867, 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (vacating PRR sentence predicated solely on hearsay evidence of defendant’s release date); Sinclair v. State, 853 So. 2d 551, 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (same); Davenport v. State, 971 So. 2d 293, 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“It is permissible for a trial court to take judicial notice of its own files, but the trial judge has to put such evidence in the record of each case when sentencing a defendant as an HFO and PRR.”). Affirmed in part, rev…
-
Wellington Gilbert v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
Previewing 3 of 4 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)