ALEXANDER PERKINS, 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 affirmed the defendant's sentence because the State properly authenticated the DOC 'Crime and Time Report' using a business records certification.
[1] A Department of Corrections release-date letter alone is not admissible under the business or public records exceptions to the hearsay rule.
[2] A signed release-date letter, written under seal, or a business record certification may be used to authenticate an attached Department of Corrections 'Crime and Time Rep…
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 intelligenceThe defendant argued his sentence was improper because the trial court considered an affidavit from the Department of Corrections reflecting his prior…
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
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 at sentencing in order to establish Perkins’ status as a prison releasee reoffender (“PRR”). This court affirmed based on our en banc opinion in Yisrael v. State, 938 So.2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). In Yisra-el, 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 Florida 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. 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 Florida Supreme Court issued an order quashing and remanding to this court for reconsideration.
We have reviewed the full appellate record and find that the State submitted a DOC business records certification to authenticate the “Crime and Time Report” upon which the trial court based Perkins’ PRR sentence. Accordingly, we affirm Perkins’ PRR designation and sentence.
Affirmed.
POLEN, FARMER and CIKLIN, 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)
- Perkins v. State, 939 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- RAY v. State, 7 So. 3d 529 (Fla. 2009)
- Perkins v. State, 7 So. 3d 529 (Fla. 2009)