STEFO P. YANKOVSKI, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Stefo Yankovski appealed the revocation of his probation and sentencing for a 1991 burglary offense. The court affirmed the probation revocation but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the State failed to provide proper corroborating evidence for prior convictions included on the sentencing scoresheet and the imposed sentence exceeded the statutory maximum.
Hearsay statements from a DOC employee cannot support the inclusion of prior convictions on a sentencing scoresheet when a defendant objects; the State must provide corroborating evidence such as certified copies of judgments. Additionally, when a guideline sentence exceeds the statutory maximum, the statutory maximum must be imposed instead.
[1] A defendant's objection to the inclusion of prior convictions on a scoresheet requires the State to provide corroborating evidence beyond hearsay statements from a Depart…
[2] Hearsay statements from a Department of Corrections employee, without further corroboration, are insufficient to support the inclusion of prior convictions on a scoreshee…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The DOC employee's hearsay statements cannot support the inclusion of prior convictions on the scoresheet when an objection is made by a defendant.”
Establishes the core holding that hearsay evidence alone is insufficient to support prior convictions when objected to by the defendant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYankovski was subject to probation revocation for a 1991 offense. At the hearing, the State attempted to support prior convictions on the sentencing s…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sentencing Guidelines Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, J.
Stefo P. Yankovski appeals the revocation of his probation for a 1991 offense and sentence. We affirm the revocation of probation, vacate the sentence, and remand.
During the hearing, Yankovski objected to the inclusion of prior convictions on his scoresheet in the absence of proof through certified copies of judgments. The State could only support the prior convictions by arguing that the scoresheet was prepared by an employee of the Department of Corrections (DOC) who had to use Yankovski’s fingerprints to determine the prior convictions because Yankovski had used over a dozen aliases in the past. The DOC employee was not available as a witness and no other corroborating evidence was offered.
The DOC employee’s hearsay statements cannot support the inclusion of prior convictions on the scoresheet when an objection is made by a defendant. See, e.g., Kincaid v. State, 734 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (disputed convictions should not have been included in score-sheet where the State failed to provide any evidence of the disputed convictions); Vance v. State, 545 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (where the defendant objected to the hearsay nature of a FBI rap sheet showing a prior conviction and specifically disputed correctness of evidence, the State was required to provide further corroborating evidence of the conviction in order to have such conviction reflected in the sentencing guidelines scoresheet).
The State concedes that Yankov-ski’s sentence of 17 years also exceeded the statutory maximum of 15 years for the offense of burglary of a dwelling in violation of section 810.02(3), Florida Statutes (1991). See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.701(d)(10) (when guideline sentence exceeds statutory maximum, the latter should be imposed).
We remand for resentencing with instructions that the State must produce corroborating evidence to support the prior convictions. Unsupported convictions are to be stricken from the scoresheet and the sentence imposed must not exceed the statutory maximum of 15 years.
Revocation of Probation AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED.
GRIFFIN and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lloyd v. State, 844 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…2); Brown v. State, 701 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Henderson v. State, 651 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). See, e.g., Pelham v. State, 815 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Singleton v. State, 760 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Yankovski v. State, 785 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); see also Mann v. State, 453 So. 2d 784 (Fla.1984). There may be some occasions when the State should be prevented from seeking a habitual offender sentence on remand, but those occasions should be the exception and not the rule…
-
Kelsey J. Hughes v. State, 139 So. 3d 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…1264, 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (quoting Watson v. State, 591 So. 2d 951, 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)). “[HJearsay statements cannot support the inclusion of prior convictions on the scoresheet when an objection is made by a defendant.” Yankovski v. State, 785 So. 2d 1283, 1284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Here, the conviction for conspiracy to deliver cocaine was supported by a certified copy and was therefore properly corroborated. See Jones v. State, 28 So. 3d 981, 982 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“The trial court ... correctly r…
Authorities Cited
- Vance v. State, 545 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Kincaid v. State, 734 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)