Personal Injury Lawyer

Florida Statute 921.241 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

F.S. 921.241 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:

Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 921.241

The 2023 Florida Statutes

Title XLVII
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CORRECTIONS

Chapter 921
SENTENCE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 921.241

921.241 Felony judgments; fingerprints required in record.—

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Electronic signature” has the same meaning as in s. 933.40.

(b) “Transaction control number” means the unique identifier comprised of numbers, letters, or other symbols for a digital fingerprint record generated by the device used to electronically capture the fingerprints.

(2) A judgment of guilty or not guilty of a felony must be in:

(a) A written record that is signed by the judge and recorded by the clerk of the court; or

(b) An electronic record that contains the judge’s electronic signature and is recorded by the clerk of the court.

(3) A judge shall cause the fingerprints of a defendant who is found guilty of a felony to be manually taken or electronically captured. If the fingerprints are:

(a) Manually taken, the fingerprints must be filed in the case in which the judgment of guilty is entered. Beneath such fingerprints shall be appended a certification to the following effect:

“I hereby certify that the above and foregoing fingerprints are the fingerprints of the defendant, (name) , and that they were placed thereon by said defendant in my presence this the day of , (year) .”

The court officer, the employee of the court, or the employee of a criminal justice agency who manually took the fingerprints shall place his or her written signature on the certification.

(b) Electronically captured, the following certification must be filed in the case in which the judgment of guilty is entered:

“I hereby certify that the digital fingerprint record associated with Transaction Control Number contains the fingerprints of the defendant, (name) , which were electronically captured from the defendant in my presence this the day of , (year) .”

The court officer, the employee of the court, or the employee of a criminal justice agency who electronically captured the fingerprints shall place his or her written or electronic signature on the certification.

(4) A written or electronic judgment of guilty, or a certified copy thereof, is admissible in evidence in the several courts of this state as prima facie evidence that the:

(a) Manual fingerprints filed in the case in which the judgment of guilty is entered and certified as set forth in this section are the fingerprints of the defendant against whom the judgment of guilty was rendered.

(b) Digital fingerprint record associated with the transaction control number specified in the certification required by this section and filed in the case in which the judgment of guilty is entered contains the fingerprints of the defendant against whom the judgment of guilty was rendered.

History.—s. 1, ch. 75-23; s. 1, ch. 90-88; s. 48, ch. 96-312; s. 38, ch. 99-6; s. 6, ch. 2019-98; s. 10, ch. 2021-230.

F.S. 921.241 on Google Scholar

F.S. 921.241 on Casetext

Amendments to 921.241

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 921.241

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 921.241.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

10 Cases from Casetext:Date Descending

U.S. Supreme Court

11th Cir. - Ct. App.11th Cir. - MD FL11th Cir. - ND FL11th Cir. - SD FLFed. Reg.Secondary Sources - All

Kleckley v. Florida
No. 19-62972-CIV-ALTMAN (S.D. Fla. Mar. 2, 2023)
Kleckley claims that the resentencing judge issued an “oral pronouncement during the de novo resentencing,” which (he says) “superseded the written June 12, 2000 judgment.” Rule 59(e) Motion at 3. Three problems with this. One, under Florida law, “[a] judgment of guilty or not guilty of a felony must be in a written [or electronic] record that is signed by the judge and recorded by the clerk of the court[.]” FLA. STAT. § 921.241(2)(a); see also FLA. R. CRIM. P. 3.670 (“If a defendant is found guilty, a judgment of guilty . . . shall be rendered in open court and in writing, signed by the judge, filed and recorded.” (emphasis added)). So, this supposed “oral pronouncement” could not have qualified as a new judgment. Two, while the resentencing judge did (as Kleckley notes) impose sentence orally on Count 2, he couldn't have issued a new judgment since he didn't re-adjudicate Kleckley “guilty or not guilty” of either count at that hearing. See Resentencing Hr'g Tr. [ECF No. 13-2] at 50-53. Three, the resentencing judge couldn't have superseded the June 12, 2000 judgment as to Count 1 because (again) the resentencing had nothing to do with Count 1.
PAGE 6
Wilson v. State
333 So. 3d 312 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)
Per Curiam. AFFIRMED . Cf. Jones v. State , 569 So. 2d 1234, 1238 (Fla. 1990) (finding "no merit" to a claim for relief based on a trial judge's failure to affix the defendant's fingerprints to the judgment of guilt as required by section 921.241, Florida Statutes ).
PAGE 313
Wilson v. State
No. 1D21-2334 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2022)
AFFIRMED. Cf. Jones v. State, 569 So.2d 1234, 1238 (Fla. 1990) (finding "no merit" to a claim for relief based on a trial judge's failure to affix the defendant's fingerprints to the judgment of guilt as required by section 921.241, Florida Statutes).
In re Amendments to the Fla. Rules of Criminal Procedure—2021 Fast-Track Report
344 So. 3d 931 (Fla. 2021)
Next, the fingerprint certifications in rule 3.986 are amended to mirror the updated statutory language of section 921.241(3)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes. See ch. 2021-230, §§ 9-11, Laws of Fla. The new language allows for digital fingerprinting and does not require that fingerprints be taken in the presence of or be certified by a judge. Instead, a court officer, employee of the court, or employee of a criminal justice agency may manually take or electronically capture the defendant's fingerprints and make such certification.
In re Amendments To Fla. Rules of Criminal Procedure-2021 Fast-Track Report
No. SC21-1091 (Fla. Oct. 28, 2021)
Next, the fingerprint certifications in rule 3.986 are amended to mirror the updated statutory language of section 921.241(3)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes. See ch. 2021-230, §§ 9-11, Laws of Fla. The new language allows for digital fingerprinting and does not require that fingerprints be taken in the presence of or be certified by a 2 judge. Instead, a court officer, employee of the court, or employee of a criminal justice agency may manually take or electronically capture the defendant's fingerprints and make such certification.
Brown v. Jones
Case No.: 5:18cv131/MCR/MJF (N.D. Fla. Nov. 19, 2018)
Motion to dismiss
Petitioner claims that the Florida Department of Corrections ("FDOC") is not authorized to detain him as a convicted defendant (see ECF No. 4 at 9, 19, 26-29). Petitioner alleges the FDOC's "online inmate locator" indicates he is being detained pursuant to judgments rendered in the Indian River Circuit Court, Case Nos. 2005-CF-1750, 2005-CF-1396, and 2005-CF-1511; however, none of the judgments in those cases contain any evidence of the identity of the defendant, for example, the defendant's fingerprints or social security number ("SSN") as required by Florida Statutes § 921.241 (see ECF No. 4 at 26-29; ECF No. 5 at 2-3). Petitioner argues that the absence of the required identifying information on the Indian River County judgments renders them invalid as a basis for the FDOC to hold him in custody (see ECF No. 4 at 9, 19, 26-29). He contends that he is "actually innocent" of the criminal judgments, and the FDOC is thus subjecting him to false imprisonment, kidnapping, and enslavement, in violation of his federal due process rights (see ECF No. 4 at 9; ECF No. 5 at 2-3; ECF No. 11 at 2-3).
PAGE 3
Parker v. Butterfield
Case No. 8:18-cv-175-30CPT (M.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2018)
Motion to dismiss
4 more...
With respect to the first part of the judicial immunity test, the Amended Complaint provides no reason to believe that Judge Raiden was not serving in his judicial capacity at the time of the challenged acts. According to the Plaintiff's allegations, during a criminal proceeding in which he was a defendant, Judge Raiden caused the Plaintiff to be "placed" as a "falsely [sic] convicted Felon" in certain unspecified public records and "willfully fail[ed] to fix the altered records." (Doc. 11 at 4). While the particulars of the acts and the circumstances under which they were taken are not entirely clear, there is no suggestion that Judge Raiden's actions fell outside of his role as a judge. Indeed, certifying that a defendant is guilty of a felony is a normal judicial function. And, Florida law requires judges to attest to such judgments. Fla. Stat. § 921.241(2) ("Every judgment of guilty or not guilty of a felony shall be in writing, signed by the judge, and recorded by the clerk of the court.").
PAGE 10
Lewis v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
Case No. 3:15cv512/RV/CJK (N.D. Fla. Dec. 28, 2016)
Motion to dismiss
Petitioner admits on the petition form that he previously challenged his 2007 criminal judgment in a § 2254 habeas corpus petition filed in this court. (Doc. 1, p. 12). This court's records, and respondent's exhibits attached to her motion to dismiss, confirm this fact. Petitioner filed his first § 2254 petition challenging the 2007 judgment on March 14, 2013. (See Lewis v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, Case No. 3:13cv119/MCR/EMT, Doc. 1) (copy provided at Doc. 15, Ex. G). The petition was dismissed with prejudice as untimely. (See Case No. 3:13cv119, Docs. 23, 30, 31) (copies provided at Doc. 15, Exs. H, I). The Eleventh Circuit denied a certificate of appealability on April 22, 2015. (See Case No. 3:13cv119, Doc. 44) (copy provided at Doc. 15, Ex. J). Thereafter, petitioner filed in state court a motion for entry of a corrected judgment, asserting that his judgment failed to meet the statutory requirements of Fla. Stat. § 921.241, because his social security number was not affixed to the judgment. (Doc. 15, Ex. K). The state court granted the motion on November 12, 2014, as follows:
PAGE 3
Gray v. State
198 So. 3d 780 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016) Cited 2 times
We reject the State's argument that the “memo of sentence” serves as a judgment and sentence in this case. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986(a) states that a circuit court “shall” use a judgment and sentence in conformity with the form provided in that rule. The “memo of sentence” is not in conformity with this rule in numerous respects. Perhaps the most important omission is the absence of any place on the form to attach the defendant's fingerprints and to certify that the fingerprints are those of the defendant. In the case of a felony conviction, the fingerprints are required not only by the form but also by statute. See § 921.241, Fla. Stat. (2011). These omissions on the “memo of sentence” are not mere “variations from these forms” that “do not void” a judgment under rule 3.986. This form simply does not constitute a judgment or a sentence even if the form is signed by a judge, which this one apparently was not. This form not only fails to serve as a rendered judgment and sentence for purposes of appeal, but it lacks the information sufficient to authorize the Department of Corrections or a sheriff to detain a person as a convicted defendant because it lacks…
Dolan v. State
187 So. 3d 262 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016) Cited 3 times
Additionally, much of the related case law, including Keith, dealt with proof of a prior felony conviction, as opposed to a prior misdemeanor conviction. Rule 3.986, which provides a form judgment requiring fingerprints, on its face states that the form “shall be used by all courts.” The rule, however, appears to have been written to comply with chapter 75–23, Laws of Florida, and section 921.241, Florida Statutes (1975), which require fingerprints to be affixed to “every written judgment” reflecting guilt of a “felony.” See In re Fla. Rules of Criminal Procedure, 315 So.2d 172, 172 (Fla.1975).
PAGE 268
Cases from cite.case.law:
GRAY, v. STATE, 198 So. 3d 780 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . a felony conviction, the fingerprints are required not only by the form but also by statute, See § 921.241 . . .
DOLAN, v. STATE, 187 So. 3d 262 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . rule, however, appears to have been written to comply with chapter 75-23, Laws of Florida, and section 921.241 . . .
L. NEVELS, v. STATE, 6 So. 3d 117 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . record does not contain a formal judgment with appellant’s fingerprints affixed, as required by section 921.241 . . .
WALKER, Jr. v. STATE, 988 So. 2d 6 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Certified judgments are generally admissible in evidence under sections 90.902 and 921.241, Florida Statutes . . .
KEITH, a k a v. STATE, 844 So. 2d 715 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Chapter 75-23 created section 921.24, Florida Statutes (1975) (currently section 921.241, Florida Statutes . . .
KING, v. STATE, 681 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1996)

. . . offender or a habitual violent felony offender, the court shall fingerprint the defendant pursuant to s. 921.241 . . .
R. ROBERTS, v. STATE, 677 So. 2d 1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . See § 921.241, Fla.Stat. (1993). . . .
LOUIS, v. STATE, 647 So. 2d 324 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . the purpose of identifying the offender, “the court shall fingerprint the defendant pursuant to s. 921.241 . . . Section 921.241(2), Florida Statutes (1991), requires the court to affix the defendant’s fingerprints . . . Section 921.241(3) makes a judgment that complies with section 921.241(2) admissible in court as prima . . . The certified copies of the predicate felonies conformed to section 921.241(2) and were admissible. . . . The fingerprint cards were not, therefore, admissible under section 921.241(3). . . .
PRIDGEON, v. STATE, 605 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . The certified copies of judgments and convictions were admissible under Section 921.241, Florida Statutes . . .
In AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 606 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1992)

. . . The Form for Judgment is amended to add a signature line required by section 921.241, Florida Statutes . . .
JONES, v. STATE, 569 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1990)

. . . merit to Jones’s claim that reversal is mandated because the trial judge failed to comply with section 921.241 . . .
KING, v. STATE, 557 So. 2d 899 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . offender or a habitual violent felony offender, the court shall fingerprint the defendant pursuant to s. 921.241 . . .
PARKER, v. STATE, 546 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1989)

. . . felony offender or an habitual misde-meanant, the court shall fingerprint the defendant pursuant to s. 921.241 . . .
WHITEHEAD, v. STATE, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)

. . . felony offender or an habitual misde-meanant, the court shall fingerprint the defendant pursuant to s. 921.241 . . .
HAYES, v. STATE, 488 So. 2d 77 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . As a portion of the sentencing process required by section 921.241, Florida Statutes (1981), Mr. . . . Section 921.241(2), further provides: Any such written judgment of guilty of a felony, or a certified . . .
C. BROWN a k a O. v. STATE, 457 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . felony offender or an habitual misde-meanant, the court shall fingerprint the defendant pursuant to s. 921.241 . . .
RAMOS, v. STATE, 429 So. 2d 318 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . fingerprints are not affixed to the order constituting the judgment and sentence as required by section 921.241 . . .
M. MEEHAN, v. STATE, 397 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . 1977, but the judgment did not include any fingerprints to connect it to Meehan as required by section 921.241 . . .
EUTSEY, v. STATE, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1980)

. . . felony offender or an habitual misde-meanant, the court shall fingerprint the defendant pursuant to s. 921.241 . . .
BUNTING, v. STATE, 361 So. 2d 810 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . and obtaining the fingerprints of appellant on the written judgment of guilt as prescribed by Section 921.241 . . .
STATE E. GERSTEIN, v. R. SCHWARTZ,, 357 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1978)

. . . Schwartz, Circuit Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, to perform his legal duty under Section 921.241 . . . Section 921.241(1), Florida Statutes, requires judges to have the fingerprints of defendants, convicted . . . Judge Schwartz is directed to comply with Section 921.241, Florida Statutes. . . . J., and BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur. . 921.241 Felony judgments; fingerprints . . . certificate shall be signed by the judge, whose signature thereto shall be followed by the word “Judge.” . 921.241 . . .
WATFORD, v. STATE, 353 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . certified as to defendant’s fingerprints but not to the judgment and sentence as required by Section 921.241 . . . court for the purpose of imposing judgment and sentence in the manner and form required by Section 921.241 . . .