RONALD CORKER, 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 reconsiders whether a Department of Corrections release-date letter was properly admitted at sentencing to establish the defendant's status as a prison release reoffender. The court modifies its prior affirmance based on the Supreme Court's ruling that DOC letters alone are not admissible under hearsay exceptions, but properly authenticated Crime and Time Reports are.
DOC release-date letters alone are not admissible under the business or public records exceptions to the hearsay rule. However, 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, which is then admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule.
[1] A business records certification may be used to authenticate an attached Crime and Time Report for purposes of establishing prison-releasee-reoffender sentencing.
[2] A court may approve the ultimate result reached by a lower appellate court while simultaneously disapproving the reasoning or rule of law relied upon by that court.
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”
Establishes the Supreme Court's holding that the documents standing alone cannot be used as hearsay exceptions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRonald Corker was convicted and sentenced as a prison release reoffender (PRR). At sentencing, the State introduced a letter from the Department of 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 Public Records Exception cases and more on FLexlaw
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
We reconsider on remand our opinion in Corker v. State, 937 So.2d 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), which the Florida Supreme Court reviewed in Corker v. State, 7 So.3d 521 (Fla.2009).
Corker argued to this court that the trial court erred by denying his hearsay objection to the introduction of a letter from the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) reflecting his most recent release date from prison. 937 So.2d at 757. The State offered the letter at sentencing in order to establish Corker’s status as a prison release reoffender (“PRR”). Id. 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, 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. 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 Corker’s PRR sentence. Accordingly, the supreme court approved of this court’s ultimate result in Corker’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 Corker’s conviction and sentence consistent with the supreme court’s opinion filed March 19, 2009.
STEVENSON, MAY 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)
- Corker v. State, 937 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Corker v. State, 7 So. 3d 521 (Fla. 2009)