Glover v. State

871 So. 2d 1025, 2004 WL 913246
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 30, 2004
Docket1D02-4802
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 871 So. 2d 1025 (Glover 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
Glover v. State, 871 So. 2d 1025, 2004 WL 913246 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

871 So.2d 1025 (2004)

Gregory A. GLOVER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D02-4802.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 30, 2004.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender and M.J. Lord, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General and Felicia A. Wilcox, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Gregory A. Glover, appeals his conviction for armed robbery and his sentence of life without parole as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR). Appellant raises six allegations of error. We affirm appellant's conviction and find merit only in Appellant's allegation of sentencing error. We reverse and remand for resentencing.

Because the state relied solely on hearsay evidence regarding Appellant's release date from prison, it failed to prove an essential requirement for sentencing pursuant to the PRR Act. See § 775.082(9), Fla. Stat. (2000); see also Sinclair v. State, 853 So.2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)(holding evidence was legally insufficient to support imposition of sentences under the PRR Act where state relied solely on hearsay evidence regarding defendant's release date from prison and failed to prove prior convictions were defendant's); King v. State, 590 So.2d 1032(Fla. 1st DCA 1991)(holding probation officer's testimony regarding defendant's release date based *1026 on a Department of Corrections computer printout, was inadmissible hearsay because officer was not the "custodian" of records and had no knowledge regarding the method of preparation or the reliability of the printout).

On remand, the trial court may again sentence Appellant as a PRR if it makes the required findings and the evidence supports those findings. Reversed and remanded for resentencing.

BARFIELD, KAHN and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ives v. State
993 So. 2d 117 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Campbell v. State
949 So. 2d 1093 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
G.T. v. Department of Children & Family Services
935 So. 2d 1245 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Peterson v. State
911 So. 2d 184 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Desue v. State
908 So. 2d 1116 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Gray v. State
910 So. 2d 867 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
871 So. 2d 1025, 2004 WL 913246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glover-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.