Newby v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Newby v. State

17 So. 3d 917, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14936, 2009 WL 3189010

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 7, 2009

Docket4D05-3555

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 So. 3d 917 (Newby 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

Newby v. State, 17 So. 3d 917, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14936, 2009 WL 3189010 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT

PER CURIAM.

We reconsider on remand our opinion in Newby v. State, 945 So.2d 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), which was quashed by the Florida Supreme Court following its decision in Newby v. State, 7 So.3d 518 (Fla. 2009). As ordered by the supreme court, we apply its decision in Yisrael v. State, 993 So.2d 952 (Fla.2008), to the facts of this case.

*918 In Yisrael, the supreme court disapproved of this court’s holding in Yisrael v. State, 938 So.2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), which was the case relied upon by this court in holding that the Department of Corrections’ certified letter alone was sufficient evidence to establish the defendant’s release date under the Prison Re-leasee Reoffender statute. See Newby, 945 So.2d at 637. Given the supreme court’s reasoning in Yisrael, we now reverse Newby’s sentence as a PRR because a DOR letter alone is insufficient to support sentencing as a PRR. See Yisrael, 993 So.2d at 961. We, therefore, remand for resentencing consistent with the supreme court’s decision in Yisrael. Upon remand, the state may present additional evidence to prove that the defendant qualifies for prison releasee reoffender sentencing. See State v. Collins, 985 So.2d 985, 990 (Fla.2008).

Reversed and Remanded.

STEVENSON, TAYLOR and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

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

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT

PER CURIAM.

We reconsider on remand our opinion in Newby v. State, 945 So.2d 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), which was quashed by the Florida Supreme Court following its decision in Newby v. State, 7 So.3d 518 (Fla. 2009). As ordered by the supreme court, we apply its decision in Yisrael v. State, 993 So.2d 952 (Fla.2008), to the facts of this case.

*918 In Yisrael, the supreme court disapproved of this court’s holding in Yisrael v. State, 938 So.2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), which was the case relied upon by this court in holding that the Department of Corrections’ certified letter alone was sufficient evidence to establish the defendant’s release date under the Prison Re-leasee Reoffender statute. See Newby, 945 So.2d at 637. Given the supreme court’s reasoning in Yisrael, we now reverse Newby’s sentence as a PRR because a DOR letter alone is insufficient to support sentencing as a PRR. See Yisrael, 993 So.2d at 961. We, therefore, remand for resentencing consistent with the supreme court’s decision in Yisrael. Upon remand, the state may present additional evidence to prove that the defendant qualifies for prison releasee reoffender sentencing. See State v. Collins, 985 So.2d 985, 990 (Fla.2008).

Reversed and Remanded.

STEVENSON, TAYLOR and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 So. 3d 917, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14936, 2009 WL 3189010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newby-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack