DAVID RAY, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court granted Ray's petition for review and approved the Fourth District Court of Appeal's ultimate result in his sentencing appeal, but disapproved the lower court's legal reasoning. The Court clarified that a Department of Corrections business-records certification is a permissible method for authenticating a Crime and Time Report used in sentencing.
The business-records certification provided in Ray's case was a permissible means of authenticating the Crime and Time Report under Florida's evidence rules. The Fourth District's ultimate result was approved, but its reliance on the reasoning from the disapproved Yisrael rule was disapproved.
[1] A business records certification can be used to authenticate an attached Crime and Time Report for sentencing purposes.
[2] A court may approve the ultimate result reached by a lower appellate court while simultaneously disapproving the reasoning or rule of law relied upon by that court.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 business-records certification provided in this case was used as a permissible means of authenticating an attached Crime and Time Report”
Establishes the Court's holding that the Department of Corrections certification method is a valid authentication technique under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRay's case involved the use of a Department of Corrections business-records certification to authenticate a Crime and Time Report during sentencing. 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 Certified Conflict cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Ray v. State, 941 So.2d 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal relied upon its decision in Yisrael v. State, 938 So.2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (en banc), disapproved in part, 993 So.2d 952 (Fla. 2008), and certified conflict with the First District Court of Appeal’s decision in Gray v. State, 910 So.2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
We stayed proceedings in this case pending our disposition of Yisrael, in which we: (1) approved the decision of the First District in Gray, and (2) disapproved the reasoning and rule of law articulated by the Fourth District in its underlying decision, but ultimately approved the result reached by that court on other grounds. See Yisrael v. State, 993 So.2d 952, 960-61 (Fla.2008). We subsequently issued an order directing the State to show cause why we should not accept jurisdiction, summarily quash the decision under review, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Yisrael The State has now supplied this Court with a Department of Corrections business-records certification contained within the appellate record, which was used during sentencing to authenticate an attached “Crime and Time Report.” See Yisrael, 993 So.2d at 960-61 (approving this authentication method); see also §§ 90.803(6), 90.902(11), Fla. Stat (2005). Further, petitioner Ray concedes this point.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and, as we did in Yisrael, approve the ultimate result reached by the Fourth District Court of Appeal below, but disapprove its reliance upon the rule expressed in Yisrael v. State, 938 So.2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), because the business-records certification provided in this case was used as a permissible means of authenticating an attached Crime and Time Report. See Yisrael, 993 So.2d at 960-61; see also Smith v. State, 990 So.2d 1162, 1164-65 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Parker v. State, 973 So.2d 1167, 1168-69 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), review denied, No. SC07-1847 (Fla. Feb. 19, 2009).
It is so ordered.
QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, and LABARGA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
RAY v. State, 7 So. 3d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…PER CURIAM. We reconsider on remand our opinion in Ray v. State, 941 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), which the Florida Supreme Court reviewed in Ray v. State, No. SC06-2385, 7 So. 3d 529, 2009 WL 702859 (Fla. Mar. 19, 2009). Ray argued to this court that the trial court erred in sentencing Mm as a prison releasee reoffender (“PRR”) based on allegedly inadmissible hearsay evidence, that is, a “Crime and Time Report” which the Depar…
-
Perkins v. State, 17 So. 3d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…PER CURIAM. We vacate our orders of May 27, 2009 and August 28, 2009, and reconsider on remand our opinion in Perkins v. State, 939 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), which the Florida Supreme Court reviewed in Perkins v. State, 7 So. 3d 529 (Fla.2009). Perkins argued to this court that the trial court erred in sentencing by considering an affidavit from the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) reflecting his prior release date from prison. 939 So. 2d at 1113. The State offered the letter…
Authorities Cited
- Yisrael v. State, 993 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2008)
- Mitchell v. State, 938 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Gray v. State, 910 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Lenorris Parker v. State, 973 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Datoral Smith v. State, 990 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- RAY v. State, 941 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)