DAVID RAY, 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.
On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reconsidered whether a Department of Corrections "Crime and Time Report" was properly admitted during sentencing to establish the defendant's status as a prison releasee reoffender. The court modified its prior affirmance, applying the Supreme Court's clarified standard that such reports may be authenticated through a business records certification to render them admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule.
A DOC "Crime and Time Report" may be rendered admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule when authenticated through either a signed release-date letter written under seal or a section 90.902(11) business record certification. The business records certification provided by the State in this case properly authenticated the report, supporting Ray's PRR sentence.
[1] A Department of Corrections release-date letter, written under seal, may be used to authenticate an attached DOC "Crime and Time Report" for admissibility under the publi…
[2] A signed release-date letter, written under seal, or a section 90.902(11) business record certification, may be used to authenticate an attached DOC "Crime and Time Repor…
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“a signed release date-letter, written under seal, or a section 90.902(11) business record certification, may be used to authenticate an attached DOC "Crime and Time Report" to render the entire report admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule”
Establishes the Supreme Court's clarified standard for authenticating DOC reports in 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 intelligenceDavid Ray was sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR) based on a "Crime and Time Report" issued by the Department of Corrections. The trial co…
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 Authentication Of Business Records cases and more on FLexlaw
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
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 Department of Corrections (“DOC”) issued. 941 So.2d at 569-70. This court affirmed based on our en banc opinion in Yisrael v. State, 938 So.2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). In Yisrael, this court held that, during sentencing, a DOC release-date letter was admissible, under the public records exception to the hearsay rule, to establish a defendant’s status as a habitual violent felony offender. Id. at 549-50.
The Florida Supreme Court, however, in Yisrael v. State, 993 So.2d 952 (Fla.2008), concluded that DOC release-date letters alone are not admissible under either the business or public records exceptions to the hearsay rule. Id. at 960. Instead, the supreme court held that a signed release date-letter, written under seal, or a section 90.902(11) business record certification, *657may be used to authenticate an attached DOC “Crime and Time Report” to render the entire report admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule. Id. (citing Parker v. State, 973 So.2d 1167, 1168-69 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); § 90.902(11), Fla. Stat. (2004)).
Following the disposition of Yisrael, the supreme court issued an order in this case directing the State to show cause why the supreme court should not remand for reconsideration in light of its decision in Yisrael. The State supplied the supreme court with a DOC business records certification, contained within the appellate record, which the State used to authenticate the “Crime and Time Report” upon which the trial court based Ray’s PRR sentence. After Ray conceded this point, the supreme court approved of this court’s ultimate result in Ray’s case, disapproved of our reliance on Yisrael, and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion.
Therefore, based upon the supreme court’s mandate issued April 14, 2009, we modify our affirmance of Ray’s conviction and sentence consistent with the supreme court’s opinion filed March 19, 2009.
HAZOURI, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Yisrael v. State, 993 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2008)
- Mitchell v. State, 938 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Lenorris Parker v. State, 973 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- RAY v. State, 941 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- RAY v. State, 7 So. 3d 529 (Fla. 2009)