Woods v. State

• Decision Date: 25 March 2020
• Docket Number: No. 4D18-3778,4D18-3778
• Citation: 294 So.3d 339
• Parties: Michael Kevin WOODS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

294 So.3d 339

Michael Kevin WOODS, Appellant,

v.STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3778

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 25, 2020]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Stacey Kime, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Walsh, Lisa S., Associate Judge.

Michael Kevin Woods ("Defendant") appeals his five-year prison sentence imposed following his no contest plea to theft and burglary charges. Defendant argues on appeal that the State presented insufficient proof of a prior conviction at his sentencing hearing. We hold that merely objecting to the sufficiency of proof of a prior offense on a scoresheet, rather than disputing its accuracy or truth, does not obligate the State to introduce corroborating evidence of the conviction. Moreover, although not required to do so, the State introduced competent evidence of a certified conviction corroborating the prior offense. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's sentence.

Background

At sentencing, the trial court reviewed a pre-sentence investigation report, Defendant's sentencing memorandum, and the sentencing scoresheet. Defendant's sentencing scoresheet listed a prior offense for burglary. The pre-sentence investigation report listed a 1984 prior conviction for burglary and larceny for Michael Woods in "Homdel, New Jersey, Monmouth County." The State also admitted a certified prior conviction for burglary in Monmouth County, New Jersey. Defendant objected to the competency and sufficiency of proof of the prior offense but did not contest its truth. Nor did the defense present any evidence refuting the New Jersey conviction. The State pointed out that Defendant's own sentencing memorandum mentioned that he was from New Jersey. Defendant was sentenced to five years in prison, prompting this appeal.

On appeal, Defendant argues that his sentencing scoresheet incorrectly added prior offense points for a 1984 burglary conviction in Monmouth County, New Jersey. He maintains that, had the scoresheet omitted this offense, his sentencing score would have permitted a range between any nonstate prison sanction up to a five-year prison term. Including the contested prior offense, however, resulted in a mandatory prison term.

Analysis

We review de novo alleged errors contesting the accuracy of a sentencing scoresheet. Moore v. State , 268 So. 3d 792, 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).

Defendant argues that the State produced insufficient proof corroborating the prior New Jersey burglary offense. However, at his sentencing hearing, he merely objected that the State's proof of identity was inadequate, not that the prior offense was untrue. "[W]here the objection to prior convictions on a rap sheet is predicated solely on hearsay, with no dispute as to their truth, the state need not produce corroborating evidence." Jennings v. State , 595 So. 2d 251, 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) ; see also Rodriguez v. State , 650 So. 2d 1111, 1112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (stating that an objection to prior record predicated solely on hearsay does not require corroboration by the State); Telfort v. State , 616 So. 2d 1222, 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (same); Banks v. State , 610 So. 2d 514, 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (same).

However, if a defendant contests the truth of the prior conviction, then the State is required to corroborate the offense by competent evidence. See Harp v. State , 715 So. 2d 377, 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) ("[W]hen a defendant denies under oath that he is the person named in certified copies of judgments of conviction, the State has the burden of proving, by other corroborating evidence, that those records refer to the defendant before the Court."); Lyons v. State , 823 So. 2d 250, 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (holding that the State has the burden of producing competent evidence of a...