Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

463 So. 2d 398

463 So.2d 398

10 Fla.L.Weekly 263

Docket No. AY-264.

Davis v. State

Charles Lee DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 29, 1985.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1985-01-29

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““imperative, where the defendant disputes the truth of hearsay statements contained in presentence investigation reports, which would be material to the statutory findings which the trial court is required to make, that the court require the State to produce corroborating evidence.””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 469 So. 2d 865 - Scott v. State, Williams v. State

“dispute the truth of hearsay statements,”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 478 So. 2d 462 - Thompson v. State

Relies on 383 So. 2d 219 - Eutsey v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1985-01-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently December 2008 · most notably 478 So. 2d 429 - Vandeneynden v. State (1985), 469 So. 2d 865 - Scott v. State (1985)

27 state decisions

230198519902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*399 Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and Kenneth L. Hosford, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Gary L. Printy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to sale of marijuana, was adjudicated guilty, and was sentenced to 30 months of imprisonment. The trial court determined that appellant had three prior felony convictions; consequently, the 30-month sentence was within the guidelines range.

¶5At the sentencing hearing, appellant raised objection to the sentencing scoresheet, claiming he had only one prior felony conviction. Where the defendant disputes the truth of hearsay statements contained in pre-sentence investigation reports, which would be material to the statutory findings which the trial court is required to make, the court must require the state to produce corroborating evidence. Eutsey v. State,383 So.2d 219 (Fla. 1980). We find this standard applies to sentencing guidelines cases.

¶6The pre-sentence investigation report indicated appellant had four prior felony convictions. The trial court threw one out because it was a duplicate. Of the other three, two were verified by defendant's probation officer in Nebraska. The third was not addressed, as evidenced by the State Attorney's comment, "I wasn't working on that one so I'm not positive on that. So, Your Honor, that would cut one felony off of the three."

¶7Because the third felony conviction was not corroborated in any way, the trial court's determination that appellant had three prior felony convictions was, under Eutsey, supra, error, resulting in a longer sentence based on the higher guidelines range, and is therefore reversed.

¶8The cause is remanded for a new sentencing hearing and such resentencing as may be required thereafter.

¶9BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., and TILLMAN PEARSON (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

/463/so2d/398 · .json · Public domain