Corker v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
January Term 2009
RONALD CORKER,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 4D05-1084
[June 3, 2009]
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
PER CURIAM.
We reconsider on remand our opinion in Corker v. State, 937 So. 2d
757 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), which the Florida Supreme Court reviewed in
Corker v. State, No. SC06-2385, 34 Fla. L. Weekly S294 (Fla. Mar. 19,
2009).
Corker argued to this court that the trial court erred by denying his
hearsay objection to the introduction of a letter from the Department of
Corrections (“DOC”) reflecting his most recent release date from prison.
937 So. 2d at 757. The State offered the letter at sentencing in order to
establish Corker’s status as a prison release reoffender (“PRR”). Id. This
court affirmed based on our en banc opinion in Yisrael v. State, 938 So.
2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). In Yisrael, this court held that, during
sentencing, a DOC release-date letter was admissible, under the public
records exception to the hearsay rule, to establish a defendant’s status
as a habitual violent felony offender. Id. at 549-50.
The Florida Supreme Court, however, in Yisrael v. State, 993 So. 2d
952 (Fla. 2008), concluded that DOC release-date letters alone are not
admissible under either the business or public records exceptions to the
hearsay rule. Id. at 960. Instead, the supreme court held that a signed
release-date letter, written under seal, or a section 90.902(11) business
record certification, may b e used to authenticate a n attached DOC
“Crime and Time Report” to render the entire report admissible under the
public records exception to the hearsay rule. Id. (citing Parker v. State,
973 So. 2d 1167, 1168-69 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); §90.902(11), Fla. Stat.
2004)).
Following the disposition of Yisrael, the supreme court issued an
order in this case directing the State to show cause why the supreme
court should not remand for reconsideration in light of its decision in
Yisrael. The State supplied the supreme court with a DOC business
records certification, contained within the appellate record, which the
State used to authenticate the “Crime and Time Report” upon which the
trial court based Corker’s PRR sentence. Accordingly, the supreme court
approved of this court’s ultimate result in Corker’s case, disapproved of
our reliance on Yisrael, a n d remanded for further proceedings in
accordance with its opinion.
Therefore, based upon the supreme court’s mandate issued April 14,
2009, we modify our affirmance of Corker’ s conviction and sentence
consistent with the supreme court’s opinion filed March 19, 2009.
STEVENSON, MAY and GERBER, JJ., concur.
*
*
*
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.
Lucie County; Steven J. Levin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562002CF001526A.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Elisabeth Porter, Assistant
Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Daniel P.
Hyndman, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
