GENEVA MASON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that the trial court's denial of a sentencing hearing was error, requiring a remand for resentencing.
Appellant was convicted of simple battery, adjudicated guilty, and given the maximum sentence without a mandatory sentencing hearing. The trial court …
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 Opportunity To Present Mitigating Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of simple battery after a jury trial. She was adjudicated guilty and given the maximum sentence of one year in jail. We affirm the conviction but remand the cause for a sentencing hearing as required by Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.720.
The requirement of a sentencing hearing is mandatory-under the rule and may not be omitted at the discretion of the trial court. Mask v. State, 289 So. 2d 385 (Fla.1973); Trudeau v. State, 348 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), certiorari denied, 355 So. 2d 517 (Fla.1978); Culbertson v. State, 306 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Nor can the mandatory nature of the rule be satisfied by giving the appellant the opportunity to submit evidence in mitigation of her sentence at a subsequent hearing on her motion to mitigate. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.720(b) requires that the sentencing court shall: “Entertain submissions and evidence by the parties which are relevant to the sentence[.]” Clearly, it would defeat the whole purpose of the rule to deny the defendant the opportunity to present evidence relevant to the sentence prior to the imposition of that sentence.
Cheatham v. State, 346 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) does not dictate a contrary result. There, we held that the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for a continuance prior to sentencing was not an abuse of discretion. The trial court in Cheatham fully complied with the requirements of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.720. In this case, the trial court expressly denied the appellant’s motion for a sentencing hearing. This denial was error. This case is remanded for resentencing after first affording the appellant an opportunity to offer matters in mitigation as mandated by the Rules of Criminal Procedure. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. State, 435 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…l established that Rule 3.720(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, makes it mandatory for a trial court to entertain submissions and evidence which are relevant to the sentence. Cross v. State, 378 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Mason v. State, 366 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Trudeau v. State, 348 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. denied, 355 So. 2d 517 (Fla.1978); Culbertson v. State, 306 So. 2d 142 (FLa. 2d DCA 1975). If a trial court refuses to allow a defendant to present matters in mitigation,…
-
Gitman v. State, 482 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…ing Gitman and allowing him to submit any relevant evidence regarding his sentence. The fact that he could have filed a motion in mitigation as provided in Rule 3.800, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, does not answer the problem. Mason v. State, 366 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Having treated all of appellant’s points that we feel justify special mention, we affirm the judgment and sentence as to Bentley. We affirm the judgment of guilty as to Gitman but reverse his sentence and remand to the trial cou…
-
Small v. State, 371 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…been afforded him, but that the trial court erred in failing to give the defendant credit for time spent in jail prior to sentencing, pursuant to § 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975). We agree with the appellant on these points. In Mason v. State, 366 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), the court held that the requirement of a sentencing hearing is mandatory under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.720 and may not be omitted at the discretion of the trial court. See also, Mask v. State, 289 So. 2d 385 (Fla.1973); Trudeau v. State,…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Culbertson v. State, 306 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Cheatham v. State, 346 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Jones v. State, 289 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1974)
- Mask v. State, 289 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1973)
- Carmella Jean Trudeau v. State, 348 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)