Capers v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Capers v. State

567 So. 2d 1079, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7952, 1990 WL 155072

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 17, 1990

DocketNo. 89-3004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 567 So. 2d 1079 (Capers v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Capers v. State, 567 So. 2d 1079, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7952, 1990 WL 155072 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a sentence containing a determination that appellant, John William Capers, is an habitual, violent felony offender. At the sentencing hearing appellant questioned the date of an earlier conviction which was the predicate for a finding of habitual offender. When a defendant attacks the truth of the statements relied upon to impose habitual offender status, the state is required to produce corroborating evidence. Lewis v. State, 514 So.2d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA), dismissed, 518 So.2d 1276 (Fla.1987). No such corroborating evidence appears in the record in this case.

Appellant also questions the constitutionality of the statute. His position has previously been rejected by this court. See Johnson v. State, 564 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

Accordingly, while we reject appellant’s constitutional arguments, we reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing to permit the trial court to revisit the question of whether appellant qualifies for treatment as a habitual, violent felony offender.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a sentence containing a determination that appellant, John William Capers, is an habitual, violent felony offender. At the sentencing hearing appellant questioned the date of an earlier conviction which was the predicate for a finding of habitual offender. When a defendant attacks the truth of the statements relied upon to impose habitual offender status, the state is required to produce corroborating evidence. Lewis v. State, 514 So.2d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA), dismissed, 518 So.2d 1276 (Fla.1987). No such corroborating evidence appears in the record in this case.

Appellant also questions the constitutionality of the statute. His position has previously been rejected by this court. See Johnson v. State, 564 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

Accordingly, while we reject appellant’s constitutional arguments, we reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing to permit the trial court to revisit the question of whether appellant qualifies for treatment as a habitual, violent felony offender.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

567 So. 2d 1079, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7952, 1990 WL 155072, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capers-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack