Corry v. State, 85-1725
| Decision Date | 26 November 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1725,85-1725 |
| Citation | 497 So.2d 1343,11 Fla. L. Weekly 2491 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2491 Hampton Alonzo CORRY, etc., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and James R. Wulchak, Chief, Appellate Division, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joseph N. D'Achille, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
Hampton Alonzo Corry appeals the sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to resisting an officer with violence. His sole argument on appeal is that the inclusion of 36 points for legal constraint at time of the offense was error where the points were based on contested and uncorroborated information in the presentence investigation report.
By information filed July 2, 1984, Corry was charged with resisting arrest with violence on May 14, 1984. Corry pleaded guilty and in return the state agreed to recommend probation and community service. After Corry entered his plea, a supplemental presentence investigation was prepared which revealed an outstanding arrest warrant for violation of probation from South Carolina dated August 25, 1984. The warrant was based on an affidavit of violation of probation dated August 25, 1978. Corry maintained he did not know he was still on probation when he left South Carolina and that he was unaware of the outstanding arrest warrant from South Carolina. Corry had been placed on probation in November 1977 in South Carolina and had come to Florida in 1978, where he was incarcerated from 1979 to 1982.
Corry contends that because he disputed the truth of the hearsay statements in the presentence investigation the court erred in failing to require the state to present corroborating evidence of his probation status. Corry cites Morris v. State, 483 So.2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), Robbins v. State, 482 So.2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) and Vandeneynden v. State, 478 So.2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), among others, for the proposition that when a defendant disputes the truth of a hearsay statement in a presentence investigation report, the court shall require the state to produce corroborating evidence. The state responds that Corry failed to dispute the accuracy of the presentence investigation report at the sentencing hearing and thus the issue is not preserved for appeal. The state points out that a defendant is required to timely object to the accuracy of any hearsay in the presentence investigation report. Eutsey v. State, 383 So.2d 219 (Fla.1980).
While the objection to the report should have been more specific, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blanton v. State, 88-1803
...evidence or strike the disputed convictions from the score sheet. (emphasis supplied) Id. at 430. See also Corry v. State, 497 So.2d 1343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Morris v. State, 483 So.2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). 3 These cases involve objections to hearsay statements in the PSI regarding prio......
-
Corry v. State, 87-353
...the court might similarly choose the minimum sentence in the applicable guidelines range, i.e. 2 1/2 years. 1 Corry v. State, 497 So.2d 1343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).2 Davis v. State, 493 So.2d 82 (Fla. 1st DCA ...