Campbell v. State, 3D05-2534.
| Decision Date | 07 February 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D05-2534.,3D05-2534. |
| Citation | 949 So.2d 1093 |
| Parties | Walter Bernard CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Robin F. Hazel, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before COPE, C.J., and RAMIREZ and SHEPHERD, JJ.
Walter Bernard Campbell appeals the sentence imposed on him as a violent career criminal ("VCC"). We remand for a new sentencing proceeding.
Defendant-appellant Campbell was convicted of attempted robbery and burglary with an assault and battery. At sentencing the State sought to have the defendant classified as a VCC. See § 775.084(1)(d), Fla. Stat. (2000).1 The State had to establish (among other things) that the primary felony offense for which the defendant is to be sentenced was committed within five years after the defendant's release from prison. See id. § 775.084(1)(d)3.a.
At the sentencing hearing, the State offered a paper printout of several pages on the Florida Department of Corrections' website relating to the defendant. The website entry showed the defendant to be "out of custody" on July 9, 1999, which was within five years of the current offense. The State maintained that this "out of custody" entry was the defendant's release date from prison.
The defense objected that the printout was hearsay and not self-authenticating. The court overruled the objection and adjudicated the defendant to be a VCC. The printout from the website was the sole factual basis for determining that the defendant committed his current offense within five years of his release from prison. The defendant has appealed.
We conclude that the hearsay objection to the printout should have been sustained. The First District has said:
"Computer printouts, like business records, are admissible if the custodian or other qualified witness is available to testify as to manner of preparation, reliability and trustworthiness of the product." Cofield v. State, 474 So.2d 849, 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)(adopting rule as stated in Pickrell v. State, 301 So.2d 473, 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)); see Desue v. State, 908 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). In appropriate circumstances, a printout may also be admissible as a properly certified copy of an official public record. See § 90.902(4), Fla. Stat. (2003); Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 902.5, at 945 (2004 ed.) ). Compare King v. State, 590 So.2d 1032, 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)( probation officer's testimony regarding defendant's release date, based on an unauthenticated Department of Corrections computer printout, was inadmissible hearsay, and that "[w]ithout the improperly admitted testimony, the evidence is legally insufficient to support the trial court's finding that appellant is an habitual felony offender").
Gray v. State, 910 So.2d 867, 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (emphasis in original; footnote omitted).2 See also Glover v. State, 871 So.2d 1025, 1025-26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); King v. State, 590 So.2d 1032, 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 803.6b, at 911-13 (2006).
While we must reverse the VCC adjudication and remand for resentencing, nothing prevents the State on remand from again seeking to establish that the defendant qualifies as a VCC.3 The cases relied on by the State are not on point.
Since there must be further proceedings on remand, we point out that a VCC adjudication is not permissible for count 1, the offense of attempted robbery. See Walters v. State 790 So.2d 483, 484-85, (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Landreth v. State, 739 So.2d 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
For...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...and trustworthiness of the product.” Id. & n. 1 (quoting Pickrell v. State, 301 So.2d 473, 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)); Campbell v. State, 949 So.2d 1093, 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Cofield v. State, 474 So.2d 849, 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). We concluded in Gray that the State failed to establish a......
-
Williams v. Oken
...alleging express and direct conflict between the First District's decision below and the district court decisions in Campbell v. State, 949 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), Fassy v. Crowley, 884 So.2d 359 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), St. Mary's, 785 So.2d 1261, Fine v. Carney Bank of Broward County, 5......
-
Whitley v. State, 1D07-4659.
...record exception to the rule against hearsay. Our decision to reverse is supported by the Third District's opinion in Campbell v. State, 949 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), which addressed nearly the exact argument Appellant forwards here. The Campbell court determined that a printout from t......
- Weiss v. Berkett
-
Trial and evidence
...Third District has held that a printout made of the Department of Corrections website was not self-authenticating. [ Campbell v. State, 949 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).] In a Maryland case worth reading, as it explains online social networking and the legal requirements, allowing into ev......
-
Judgment and sentence
...the DOC website showing the date of defendant’s release from prison is hearsay and cannot be used over an objection. Campbell v. State, 949 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) Fourth District Court of Appeal When defendant is sentenced for a nonviolent 3d degree felony and his total sentence poi......