STATE_V._FIGUEROA_ _2020 AP 2 A O_ _12.29.2020

Appeal from the County Court for Orange County, Florida Wayne Shoemaker, County Court Judge Aramis D. Ayala, State Attorney, and Merrilyn Elise Hoenemeyer, Assistant State Attorney for Appellant Robert Wesley, Public Defender, and Kinsey Johnston, Assistant Public Defender for Appellee. Before WILSON, HIGBEE, and WHITE, J J

PERCURIAM.

FINAL ORDER REVERSING TRIAL COURT

The State of Florida appeals the trial court's order granting Eleison Figueroa's (herein "Appellee") pretrial motion in limine, which excluded from evidence a certified copy of the victim's driver's license record. We dispense with oral argument pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedue 9.320 and reverse. On February 18, 2019, the State charged Appellee with one count of battery. The victim passed away during the pendency ofthe case. During discovery, t}re State disclosed to the Page I of 4 Filing # 118839076 E-Filed 12/29/2020 03:12:46 In this appeal, the State argues that under Section322.20l, Florida Statutes, and Cardv. State,927 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), the certified copy of the victim's DAVID record, including the color photograph, is self-authenticating, because it is a complete driving record. Additionally, the State contends that the DAVID record is not hearsay because it falls within the public records exception under Section 90.803(8), Florida Statutes. The State avers the trial court abused its discretion when it granted Appellee's motion in limine. Appellee argues that the State is using the DAVID record to identifu the victim and satisfr an element ofthe charged crime. This document, Appellee claims, relies on an out of court statement by the deceased victim as to her identity, making it hearsay for which there is no exception, considering that the State does not have as a witness the Department of Motor Vehicles employee who provided the victim with her driver's license . Appellee states that the unavailability hearsay exceptions for when a declarant is unavailable "do not include public record, or, more specifically, driving records." Therefore, Appellee maintains the trial court did not abuse its discretion and argues that this Court should affirm the trial court's order granting the motion in limine. We review the county court's order for an abuse of discretion. See Dessaure v. State, 891 So. 2d 455 (FIa.2004) (citing Srate v. Polak,598 So. 2d 150 (Fla. lst DCA 1992) (standard of review on a lower tribunal's ruling on a motion in limine is abuse of discretion)). Page 2 of 4 [*3] "Section 322.201, Florida Statutes ... makes driving records issued by DHSMV self authenticating and admissible in evidence." Card,927 So. 2d at 201. In addition, Section 90.902(4), Florida Statutes, states that extrinsic evidence of authenticity is not required for: A copy ofan official public record, report, or entry, or ofa document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as corect by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification by certificate complying with subsection (1), subsection (2), subsection (3), or complying with any act ofthe Legislature or rule adopted by the Supreme Court. The Court finds the stamped signature on the certified copy of the victim's DAVID record sufficient to meet t}re requirements under Section 90.902(2), and the certification and signature sufficient under Section 90.902(4), thus making the document self-authenticating under Section 90.902. Unlike a law enforcement lab report, prepared pursuant to a police investigation, or a breath-test affidavit written by a technician and prepared for use at trial, "[d]riving records are kept in Florida for the public benefit and are not solely prepared for trial purposes ... and [are] not made or kept for law enforcement or trial purposes." Card,927 So. 2d at 203. In this case, the victim's driving record was not prepared for use at trial, but is a record maintained by the Depa(ment of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV). The certified copy ofthe victim's DAVID record is a self-authenticating public record. It was therefore an abuse of discretion for the trial court to exclude the certified copy ofthe victim's DAVID record, thus warranting reversal. Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED Al{D ADJUDGED that the hial court's order granting the motion in limine is REVERSED, and this cause is REMANDED for further proceedings. No motions for rehearing will be considered. Page 3 of 4 [*4] DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Orlando. Orange County, Florida. on this ).r*-r./.r- . .2020. day of Avenue, Suite 400, Orlando, Florida 32801 on this /] 2020. L) L T

A DAVIS WILSO

Presiding Circuit Judge HIGBEE and WHITE, J.J., concur. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTII'Y that a copy of this Order has been fumished by U.S. Mail, hand delivery, or e-portal filing to: The Honorable Wayne Shoemaker, 425 N. Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801; The Honorable Elizabeth Gibson,425 N. Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801; Merrilyn Elise Hoenemeyer, Assistant State Attorney, Post Office Box 1673, Orlando, Florida 32802; and to Kinsey Johnston, Assistant Public Defender, 435 N. Orange day of Judicial t Page 4 of4 /t^t, rlt t 'lk-- D