DAVE WEST, 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.
Dave West appealed his conviction and thirty-year sentence as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR) for robbery with a weapon. The court affirmed the conviction but reversed the PRR sentence and remanded for resentencing because the State failed to prove West was the person identified in Department of Corrections records without fingerprint or photographic evidence.
The State failed to meet its burden to prove West qualified as a PRR because it presented no fingerprint or photographic evidence to connect West to the inmate named in the DOC certified record. The defendant did not waive his objection merely by failing to file a written objection; the oral objection at sentencing was preserved.
[1] A defendant does not waive an objection to the State's evidence by failing to file a written objection if the objection is otherwise preserved on the record.
[2] To establish that a defendant qualifies as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR), the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is the same pers…
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“The State failed to present evidence sufficient to prove that Bodie was the inmate named in the printout.”
Establishes the legal standard that the State must present evidence proving the defendant is the specific inmate named in DOC records when seeking PRR sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWest was convicted of robbery with a weapon and sentenced as a PRR. At sentencing, the State presented a certified DOC 'time and crime sheet' to estab…
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
Dave West appeals his judgment and thirty-year sentence as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR) for robbery with a weapon. We affirm the conviction without discussion but reverse the PRR sentence and remand for resentencing.
We agree with West’s contention that the State failed to meet its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that West qualified as a PRR pursuant to section 775.082(9), Florida Statutes (2006). We reject the State’s contention that by not filing a written objection West waived his objection to the State’s evidence.
At the sentencing hearing, the State presented what it referred to as a certified “time and crime sheet” from the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC) to establish West’s last release date from prison. The certified DOC record that the State presented contains no fingerprints or photographs. Defense counsel objected, stating that
there is no one here to testify that the person listed in those documents is in fact the same person that you have in front of you here today for sentencing. There is no one here to testify that the person here to be sentenced by you today has the same fingerprints as the person who was released from the Department of Corrections in those documents.
Later, defense counsel asserted that he was still making the objections that he had made earlier. The court replied, “The record so reflects.” It is thus clear that defense counsel preserved his objection regarding the lack of fingerprint evidence to establish West was the inmate listed in the DOC certified record.
Turning to the merits, this court has addressed the issue of proof of identity for PRR purposes in Bodie v. State, 983 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). There, the State presented a certified computer record from the DOC in a PRR sentencing hearing to show convictions and release dates. Bodie’s counsel objected based on the lack of fingerprints. This court noted *1035that “[t]he computer record did not contain fingerprints or a photograph of the named inmate.” Id. at 1197. We determined that “[t]he State failed to present evidence sufficient to prove that Bodie was the inmate named in the printout.” Id. Thus, we reversed the PRR sentence and remanded for resentencing. Id. In Prince v. State, 989 So.2d 755, 756 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), this court, relying on Bodie, again determined that the State failed to meet its burden to prove that the defendant qualified as a PRR when the certified computer record from the DOC contained no fingerprints or photograph to connect the defendant before the court for sentencing with the inmate named in the computer record.
Thus, based on Prince and Bodie, we reverse West’s thirty-year sentence as a PRR for robbery with a weapon and remand for resentencing. At resentencing, the State may offer additional evidence to prove that West qualifies as a PRR. See Prince, 989 So.2d at 756-57 (citing State v. Collins, 985 So.2d 985, 989 (Fla.2008)).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CASANUEVA, C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jarrett v. State, 224 So. 3d 897 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See McDonald v. State, 957 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2007); Knight v. State, 808 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 2002); West v. State, 16 So. 3d 1033 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Taylor v. State, 114 So. 3d 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Souza v. State, 889 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). NORTHCUTT, KHOUZAM, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Despart v. State, 884 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- State v. Ransom Louis Collins, 985 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 2008)
- Luman Bodie v. State, 983 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Prince v. State, 989 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)