JAMES INGRAM, 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 prison release reoffender (PRR) designation was properly supported by admissible evidence. The court affirmed the PRR designation on Count I after the Florida Supreme Court clarified that DOC release-date letters, when properly authenticated with a signed release date-letter under seal, can support a DOC Crime and Time Report under the public records exception to the hearsay rule.
The court affirmed the PRR designation and sentence on Count I because the State supplied a properly executed and sealed release date-letter to authenticate the attached DOC Crime and Time Report, complying with the Florida Supreme Court's requirements in Yisrael v. State. However, the court remanded for resentencing on Count II (grand theft).
[1] A signed Department of Corrections release-date letter, written under seal, or a section 90.902(11) business record certification, may be used to authenticate an attached…
[2] Department of Corrections release-date letters alone are not admissible under the business or public records exceptions to the hearsay rule.
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“DOC release-date letters alone are not admissible under either the business or public records exceptions to the hearsay rule. Instead, the supreme court held that 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 evidentiary standard for admitting DOC documents at sentencing, as clarified by the Florida Supreme Court in Yisrael v. State.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Ingram was convicted of burglary of a dwelling with battery (Count I) and grand theft (Count II). At sentencing, the trial court designated and …
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
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
We reconsider on remand our opinion in Ingram v. State, 943 So.2d 325 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), which the Florida Supreme Court reviewed in Ingram v. State, No. SC06-2469, 7 So.3d 531, 2009 WL 702877 (Fla. Mar. 19, 2009).
Ingram argued to this court, among other things, that the trial court erred in designating and sentencing him as a prison release reoffender (“PRR”) on Count I (burglary of a dwelling with battery). 943 So.2d at 327. This court affirmed as to Count I 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 *658date-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. 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. In response, the State asserted that documents submitted during sentencing complied with the supreme court’s Yis-rael decision. Because the full appellate record was not before the supreme court, the court granted Ingram’s petition for review, quashed our decision, and remanded this case to this court for reconsideration in light of Yisrael.
We have reviewed the full appellate record, and it appears that the State, at sentencing, supplied the trial court with a signed release date-letter, written under seal, to authenticate an attached DOC “Crime and Time Report” upon which the trial court based Ingram’s PRR sentence on Count I. Accordingly, we now affirm Ingram’s PRR designation and sentence on Count I consistent with the supreme court’s opinion filed March 19, 2009, and mandate issued April 14, 2009. However, pursuant to our opinion issued December 13, 2006, we remand for resentencing on Count II (grand theft). 943 So.2d at 327.
GROSS, C.J., HAZOURI and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allen v. State, 12 So. 3d 919 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…n 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.” Ingram v. State, 7 So. 3d 657, 657-58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (citing Yisrael, 993 So. 2d at 960). Here, the State admitted the Crime and Time Report with the required authentication to support an enhanced sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender statute as approved in Yisrae…
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)
- Ingram v. State, 943 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Ingram v. State, 7 So. 3d 531 (Fla. 2009)