Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed January 18, 2023.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-2150
Lower Tribunal No. F12-5553
________________
Christian Quispe,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L.
Fernandez, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant
Public Defender, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kseniya Smychkouskaya,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before HENDON, GORDO, and BOKOR, JJ.
BOKOR, J.
Christian Quispe challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
his violation of probation as well as his sentence as a habitual violent felony
offender (HVFO) and prison releasee reoffender (PRR). The record provides
ample support for a finding of violation of probation as well as sufficient
notice that a violation of probation could result in a sentence of “a maximum
of life in prison.” Accordingly, we affirm without further discussion on those
grounds. But, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing because
the trial court failed to make requisite findings of Quispe’s eligibility for PRR
sentencing. See § 775.082(9)(a)3., Fla. Stat. (providing that a defendant
must be sentenced as a PRR “[u]pon proof from the state attorney that
establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant is a prison
releasee reoffender”); Gray v. State,
910 So. 2d 867, 868 (Fla. 1st DCA
2005) (vacating PRR sentence predicated solely on hearsay evidence of
defendant’s release date); Sinclair v. State,
853 So. 2d 551, 552 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2003) (same); Davenport v. State,
971 So. 2d 293, 295 (Fla. 4th DCA
2008) (“It is permissible for a trial court to take judicial notice of its own files,
but the trial judge has to put such evidence in the record of each case when
sentencing a defendant as an HFO and PRR.”).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, sentence vacated and remanded for
resentencing.
2
