Louis v. State, 93-03037
| Decision Date | 21 December 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-03037,93-03037 |
| Citation | 647 So.2d 324 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D40 Kevin Scott LOUIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Paul D. Sullivan, Punta Gorda, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Patricia E. Davenport, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Kevin Scott Louis attacks his sentence as a habitual violent felony offender. He asserts that the state failed to prove he was the person convicted of the predicate felonies used to support the sentencing. We agree, and accordingly reverse his sentence and remand for resentencing.
The state must establish by affirmative evidence the identity of the accused as the person previously convicted of the predicate crimes. See Ruth v. State, 574 So.2d 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Miller v. State, 573 So.2d 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Here, a fingerprint expert testified, based on a comparison of Louis's fingerprints from the present cases with those in two previous cases, that Louis was that same person who had previously been adjudicated guilty of the qualifying felonies. The state introduced the documents the expert had used; certified copies of previous convictions that contained the fingerprints of the person convicted, and fingerprint cards that purported to contain Louis's fingerprints in the cases for which he was being sentenced. While each of these cards referenced one of the present case numbers, none bore a seal of the State of Florida or a signature of a court officer. Supposedly the fingerprinting had taken place at Louis's plea hearing, although this is not clear from a review of the cards because they are not dated. Louis objected to these fingerprint cards on the grounds that they contained hearsay and were unauthenticated, but the trial court admitted them. The state did not offer testimony from the deputy who had actually rolled the fingerprints.
The habitual offender statute states that, for the purpose of identifying the offender, "the court shall fingerprint the defendant pursuant to s. 921.241." Sec. 775.084(3)(e), Fla.Stat. (1991). Section 921.241(2), Florida Statutes (1991), requires the court to affix the defendant's fingerprints to every written judgment of guilty of a felony. The judgment must contain the following certificate relating to the fingerprints:
"I hereby certify that the above and foregoing fingerprints on this judgment are the fingerprints of the defendant, ____, and that they were placed thereon by said defendant in my presence, in open court, this the ____ day of _____, 19___."
Such certificate shall be signed by the judge, whose signature thereto shall be followed by the word "Judge."
Sec. 921.241(2), Fla.Stat. (1991).
Section 921.241(3) makes a judgment that complies with section 921.241(2) admissible in court as prima facie evidence that the fingerprints appearing thereon are the fingerprints of the defendant. The certified copies of the predicate felonies conformed to section 921.241(2) and were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Collins
...1995) (resentencing ordered where State improperly introduced prior convictions that had not been sentenced separately); Louis v. State, 647 So.2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (resentencing ordered where State failed to prove proper fingerprint authentication of predicate crimes); Huggins v. Stat......
-
State v. Moussa
...He then cites a number of out-of-state cases finding error in the admission of unauthenticated fingerprint cards. See Louis v. State, 647 So.2d 324 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) ; State v. Rich, 293 S.C. 172, 359 S.E.2d 281 (1987) ; cf. State v. Foster, 284 N.C. 259, 200 S.E.2d 782, 793 (1973) (al......
-
Pierce v. State
...the fingerprint card from the master file "violated the hearsay rule and should have been excluded"); Louis v. State , 647 So.2d 324, 325–26 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994) (explaining that when the State failed to properly authenticate fingerprint cards, the cards were erroneously admitted, and......
-
Olsen v. State, 96-153
...crimes at the new sentencing hearing, the trial court may again sentence him as a habitual felony offender." Louis v. State, 647 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Lastly, the remaining point raised by the defendant lacks Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part, and remanded for resentencing. ...