MICHAEL P. DENLINGER, 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.
The court held that the Crime and Time Report alone is insufficient evidence for Prison Releasee Reoffender sentencing without proper authentication or a signed release-date letter.
The State sought to sentence the defendant as a Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) based solely on a Crime and Time Report. The appellate court had prev…
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 FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
We reconsider on remand our opinion in Delinger v. State, 944 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006),1 which was quashed by the Florida Supreme Court following its decision in Denlinger v. State, 7 So.3d 522, 523 (Fla.2009). As ordered by the supreme court, we apply its decision in Yisrael v. State, 993 So.2d 952 (Fla.2008), to the facts of this case.
In Yisrael, the Florida Supreme Court disapproved of this Court’s holding in Yisrael v. State, 938 So.2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), which was the case relied upon by this Court in holding that the Crime and Time Report alone was sufficient evidence of Denlinger’s last release date to sentence him as a Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR). § 775.082(9)(a)(l), Fla. Stat. (2005).
Given the supreme court’s reasoning in Yisrael, we now reverse Denlinger’s sentence as a PRR. For a Crime and Time Report to be admitted as a business record at a sentencing hearing, the State must supply the authentication required by sections 90.803(6) and 90.902(11), Florida Statutes, or it must submit the Crime and Time Report and a signed and sealed release-date letter as one combined record. Yisrael, 993 So.2d at 958, 960. In this case, neither a business-record authentication nor a signed and sealed release-date letter was submitted.
We, therefore, remand for resentencing consistent with the supreme court’s decí*1265sion in Yisrael. Upon remand, the State may present additional evidence to prove that the defendant qualifies for PRR sentencing. See State v. Collins, 985 So.2d 985, 990 (Fla.2008).
Reversed arid Remanded.
POLEN, MAY and LEVINE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Forman v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…ted, uncertified Crime and Time Report. Mr. Forman argues the resentencing court erred in taking judicial notice of the previously admitted evidence, which was used to support the finding that Mr. Forman qualified as an HFO. We agree. II. v. State, 17 So. 3d 1264, 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (citing Yisrael v. State, 993 So. 2d 952, 958, 960 (Fla. 2008)). 2The resentencing court stated it had reviewed the trial transcript, prior sentencing packet, prior notice of enhanced penalty, scoresheet guidelines, and pre…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Yisrael v. State, 993 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2008)
- Mitchell v. State, 938 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Despart v. State, 884 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- State v. Ransom Louis Collins, 985 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 2008)
- Bailey v. State, 944 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Delinger v. State, 944 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Denlinger v. State, 7 So. 3d 522 (Fla. 2009)