ROBERT SMALL, 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.
Robert Small was convicted of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and sentenced to one year in county jail. On appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court erred by denying a sentencing hearing and failing to credit time served prior to sentencing.
The court held that a sentencing hearing is mandatory under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720 and may not be omitted at the trial court's discretion. Additionally, the trial court must afford a defendant credit for time served in jail prior to sentencing.
[1] A trial court must afford a defendant a sentencing hearing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720.
[2] Denial of a defendant's request for a sentencing hearing is reversible error.
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 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”
Establishes that sentencing hearings are not discretionary but mandatory
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmall was tried by jury and found guilty of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The trial court immediately adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him …
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 Fla. Stat. § 921.161(1) Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Small, was tried by a jury and a verdict of guilty was returned for the offense of the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The trial court adjudicated defendant guilty and immediately sentenced him to imprisonment for a period of one year in the county jail; the sentence constitutes the maximum penalty under the applicable statute. Defense counsel stated to the court that there were certain circumstances about which the court should be made fully aware in order for it to consider mitigation of sentence and the defense requested a sentencing hearing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720. The court denied the motion. Defendant filed the appeal contending that not only should a sentencing hearing have 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, 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). The Mason court stated that 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.1
We now address appellant/defendant’s contention that error was committed by the court in that it failed to give credit for time served. We have determined that when the cause is remanded pursuant to this court’s mandate regarding point one, the trial court shall additionally determine what credit shall be afforded defendant for time served prior to sentencing. Smith v. State, 310 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Brooker v. State, 362 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Section 921.161(1), Florida Statute (1975).
We, therefore, reverse and remand the cause with directions to the trial court to resentence defendant after first affording him an opportunity to offer matters in mitigation of sentence and to afford him credit for time served in the county jail prior to sentencing.
Reversed and remanded.
. The court noted in its option that the holding in Cheatham v. State, 346 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), does not dictate a contrary result. In Cheatham the court held that the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for a continuance prior to sentencing was not an abuse of discretion, and the court had fully complied with the requirements of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.720.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. State, 435 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…a palpable abuse of discretion.... Defendant was given an opportunity to submit evidence in mitigation of sentence, and we find the trial court fully complied with the requirements of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.720. Id. at 1218-1219. See also Small v. State, 371 So. 2d 532 (Fla.3d DCA 1979) and Mason v. State, supra, in which Cheatham was distinguished. In the case sub judice, appellant was given an opportunity to present matters in mitigation. That he was unprepared to do so is more a function of a [*262] failure to…
-
Nunez v. State, 542 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ing to “[e]ntertain submissions and evidence by the parties which are relevant to the sentence,” this rule is not violated when, as here, the defendant makes no offer to present such evidence or submissions at the sentencing hearing. Small v. State, 371 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) and Mason v. State, 366 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), relied on by the defendant, do not compel a contrary result because there, unlike the instant case, the defendant made a specific request to present mitigating evidence at the…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 310 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Odom v. State, 310 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- 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)
- Brooker v. State, 362 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Mason v. State, 366 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)