DWAYNE WILLIAMS, 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.
Dwayne Williams appealed his conviction for tampering with evidence and his habitual offender sentence. The court affirmed the conviction and evidentiary rulings but reversed the habitual offender sentence because the State relied on documents from another case file rather than evidence properly introduced in the current record.
The court affirmed the conviction and evidentiary rulings but reversed the habitual offender sentence because a prosecutor may not rely on evidence from another hearing to prove a defendant's habitual offender status; the matter was remanded for resentencing with opportunity for the State to present proper evidence.
[1] A habitual offender sentence must be reversed when the State relies on evidence from another case file that is not properly admitted into the current record.
[2] A prosecutor may not rely on evidence from a separate hearing to prove a defendant's habitual offender status.
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“the State candidly acknowledges that the present record does not contain the judgments on which the habitual offender sentence is based, and that a prosecutor may not rely on evidence from another hearing to prove the defendant's habitual offender status”
Establishes the core procedural error and the governing legal principle that habitual offender sentences require proper evidence in the current record
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDwayne Williams was convicted by jury of tampering with evidence under § 918.13(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007). At sentencing, the prosecutor attempted to s…
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 Habitual Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
A jury convicted Dwayne Williams of tampering with evidence, § 918.13(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007). In this appeal he raises three claims of fundamental error: the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, the court erred in admitting evidence at trial, and the State failed to prove he qualified for habitual offender sentencing. We affirm his first two points without further discussion. We reverse the habitual offender sentence and remand for resentencing.
At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor relied on documents contained in another of Williams’s ease files to support the habitual offender sentence. The State candidly acknowledges that the present record does not contain the judgments on which the habitual offender sentence is based, and that a prosecutor may not rely on evidence from another hearing to prove the defendant’s habitual offender status. See Sanders v. State, 765 So.2d 161, 162 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reversing habitual offender sentence and noting that the State did not move into evidence information about convictions from another court file); Brooks v. State, 38 So.3d 826, 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (noting error in allowing the State to rely on documents introduced in another sentencing hearing to prove defendant’s habitual offender status). Accordingly, we reverse Williams’s sentence and remand for resentencing. The State may offer additional evidence that Williams in fact qualifies for habitual offender sentencing at the hearing. See State v. Collins, 985 So.2d 985 (Fla.2008); Prince v. State, 989 So.2d 755, 756-57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
VILLANTI and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Despart v. State, 884 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- State v. Ransom Louis Collins, 985 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 2008)
- Sanders v. State, 765 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Prince v. State, 989 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Brooks v. State, 38 So. 3d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)