VITTORIO v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

VITTORIO v. State

9 So. 3d 773, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 6895, 2009 WL 1531617

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 3, 2009

Docket4D06-343

StatusPublished

This text of 9 So. 3d 773 (VITTORIO 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

VITTORIO v. State, 9 So. 3d 773, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 6895, 2009 WL 1531617 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

GROSS, C.J.

After the supreme court granted review based upon our reliance on Yisrael v. State, 938 So.2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), disapproved in part, 993 So.2d 952 (Fla. 2008), it granted the petition, quashing our decision and remanding for reconsideration upon application of its decision in Yis-rael. That decision involved whether documents submitted by the Department of Corrections to establish a prisoner’s release date from prison were admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule. In quashing the opinion of this court, the supreme court noted that it did not have the full appellate record and could not determine for itself whether the documents submitted during Vittorio’s sentencing complied with Yisrael.

We have examined the record. The affidavit of the DOC official and attached report, which the state introduced as evidence of Vittorio’s prison release date, comply with Yisrael. We therefore affirm.

WARNER and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

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

ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

GROSS, C.J.

After the supreme court granted review based upon our reliance on Yisrael v. State, 938 So.2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), disapproved in part, 993 So.2d 952 (Fla. 2008), it granted the petition, quashing our decision and remanding for reconsideration upon application of its decision in Yis-rael. That decision involved whether documents submitted by the Department of Corrections to establish a prisoner’s release date from prison were admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule. In quashing the opinion of this court, the supreme court noted that it did not have the full appellate record and could not determine for itself whether the documents submitted during Vittorio’s sentencing complied with Yisrael.

We have examined the record. The affidavit of the DOC official and attached report, which the state introduced as evidence of Vittorio’s prison release date, comply with Yisrael. We therefore affirm.

WARNER and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 So. 3d 773, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 6895, 2009 WL 1531617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vittorio-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack