MICHAEL L. LITTLE, 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.
Michael Little appeals his convictions for throwing a deadly missile and burglary of a structure, challenging his habitual offender sentence. The court affirms his convictions but reverses the habitual offender sentence because the state failed to present sworn testimony from a fingerprint examiner to prove the prior convictions were Little's.
A trial court cannot rely on written fingerprint examiner reports without sworn testimony to prove prior convictions belong to the defendant. The state bears the burden of proving prior convictions through competent evidence, including testimony from the fingerprint examiner.
[1] A fingerprint examiner's written report is inadmissible hearsay and insufficient, without sworn testimony, to prove prior convictions for sentencing purposes.
[2] When a defendant contests prior convictions used for habitual offender sentencing, the state bears the burden of proving the convictions belong to the defendant.
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“When Little contested the convictions, the state had the burden of proving that they were his pursuant to Chestnut v. State, 874 So.2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)”
Establishes the state's burden to prove prior convictions with competent evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLittle was convicted of throwing a deadly missile into a building and burglary of a structure. At sentencing, he was classified as a habitual offender…
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 Burden Of Proof For Prior Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
Michael Little appeals his convictions and sentences for throwing a deadly missile into a public or private building and burglary of a structure. He raises four points on appeal. We affirm in all re*306spects except as to his fourth point concerning a claim of a sentencing error.
Little was sentenced as a habitual offender upon the conviction for burglary of a structure based on felony convictions in 2007 and 1999. Little asserted that the convictions were not his; however, the court overruled his objections and found the convictions were his based upon the written report of a fingerprint examiner, who did not testify. The trial court then imposed a ten-year habitual offender sentence for the burglary of a structure. The state concedes this was error. When Little contested the convictions, the state had the burden of proving that they were his pursuant to Chestnut v. State, 874 So.2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), which says:
John Chestnut appeals from the denial of his Motion to Correct Sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) (2001). Chestnut was sentenced to life in prison as a prison releasee reoffender under section 775.082(9)(a)l, Florida Statutes (2001).
During the sentencing hearing, the State presented an affidavit under seal from Joyce Hobbs, records custodian of the Florida Department of Corrections, which certified that she was the department’s records custodian and that Chestnut’s last release date was September 8, 2001, less than three months before the date of the robbery for which he was being sentenced. The state also presented certified copies of three prior convictions along with forms signed by a fingerprint analyst indicating that Chestnut’s fingerprints taken in the instant case matched those on the three prior convictions. Chestnut objects to this proof as insufficient to support his sentencing as a prison releasee reoffen-der. We agree. Without the sworn testimony at the hearing by a fingerprint analyst, the analyses of the fingerprints are hearsay and inadmissible to prove the prior convictions were Chestnut’s.
We therefore remand for a resentenc-ing hearing at which the state will be permitted to present the requisite evidence to support sentencing as a prison releasee reoffender.
Id. at 732 (emphasis supplied).
As in Chestnut, the reports of the fingerprint examiner were not competent to prove the prior convictions were Little’s.
We therefore reverse the habitual offender sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing with the state having the opportunity to prove the prior convictions.
STEVENSON and GERBER, JJ„-concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O'Brien v. State, 117 So. 3d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…PER CURIAM. We reverse and remand the summary denial of appellant’s Rule 3.850 motion. Burton v. State, 92 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). The trial court denied the motion without explanation, indicating it had reviewed “the State’s Response.” As the State concedes in this appeal, no State response was in fact filed below. Appellant pointed out in his motion for r…