DAVID RUSSELL RILEY, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
David Russell Riley appeals his sentences in four cases, arguing the trial court violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720 by failing to allow him to present mitigation evidence at sentencing. The court reverses and remands the sentence in one case but affirms the convictions and sentences in the other three.
Yes. The trial court violated Rule 3.720 by refusing to allow Riley the opportunity to submit testimony or present evidence in mitigation on case No. 80-3298 before pronouncing sentence. The mandatory language of Rule 3.720 requires that sentencing courts entertain relevant submissions and evidence from the parties.
[1] A trial court must entertain submissions and evidence relevant to sentencing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(b).
[2] Denying a defendant the opportunity to present evidence in mitigation at a sentencing hearing violates due process.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Rule 3.720 provides that at the sentencing hearing the sentencing court shall entertain submissions and evidence by the parties which are relevant to the sentence. The language of this rule, of course, is mandatory.”
Establishes the mandatory nature of Rule 3.720 requiring courts to entertain relevant submissions at sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRiley was convicted in four separate cases (Nos. 79-2250, 79-3215, 79-3216, and 80-3298). At the sentencing hearing, Riley's counsel objected to propo…
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.
HOBSON, Judge.
David Russell Riley appeals four sentences imposed for convictions in four cases (circuit court Nos. 79-2250, 79-3215, 79-3216 and 80-3298) on the ground that the trial court erred at the sentencing hearing by failing to follow the mandate of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720. We reverse the sentence on No. 80-3298 and remand.
At the outset of the sentencing hearing appellant’s trial counsel raised an objection to proposed sentences on Nos. 79-2250, 79-3215 and 79-3216. His counsel and the court then agreed to postpone a disposition of those cases. The court thereupon proceeded to deal with No. 80-3298. While in the process of adjudicating appellant guilty of the charges on this case, the court and appellant’s counsel engaged in the following conversation:
MR. ANTONELLO: May it please the Court, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. ANTONELLO: And I should have interrupted the Court earlier, I feel. But I thought maybe the defendant might want to say a few words on his own behalf for himself.
THE COURT: I — that is fine, but I have — I’ve had him before me before.
MR. ANTONELLO: I know.
THE COURT: I have seen this, and I have already made up my mind, and I'm resolute in the direction I’m going if I just could get it out. All right?
MR. ANTONELLO: I — yes, sir, and I had figured that’s — that is what the Court had in mind, and I know the Court is completely familiar with his case, but— but I — I just thought that he might want to say a few words.
THE COURT: Right. No, I’m not. He can say what he wishes, but it will be after I dispose of this. MR. ANTONELLO: Yes, sir. The court finished adjudicating him guilty on No. 80-3298 and then sentenced him. Later, appellant indicated through his counsel that he wished to waive the earlier objection on the other cases and have the sentences on those cases pronounced that day. The court thereupon adjudicated him guilty of the charges on those cases and pronounced sentences without objection.
Rule 3.720 provides that at the sentencing hearing the sentencing court shall entertain submissions and evidence by the parties which are relevant to the sentence. The language of this rule, of course, is mandatory. Mask v. State, 289 So. 2d 385 (Fla.1973); Culbertson v. State, 306 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). We believe that the court violated this rule by refusing to allow appellant the opportunity to submit testimony or present evidence in mitigation on No. 80-3298.
Accordingly, we reverse the sentence on No. 80-3298 and remand for resentencing. We affirm all the convictions and the other sentences.
REVERSED in part, AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED.
OTT, C.J., and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hargis v. State, 451 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…are relevant to the sentence. If the trial court refuses to allow a defendant to present matters in mitigation, the case must be remanded for a sentencing hearing and resentencing. Miller v. State, 435 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Riley v. State, 423 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). In Miller, the defendant was not prepared to offer mitigating factors immediately after the trial and requested a continuance. The trial court denied this request. The Third District affirmed the sentence, noting that the defend…
-
Moye Scruggs v. State, 463 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…al court “shall entertain submissions and evidence by the parties which are relevant to the sentence.” The language of the rule is mandatory. Mask v. State, 289 So. 2d 385 (Fla.1973); State v. Hohl, 431 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Riley v. State, 423 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Here, how [*489] ever, the trial court clearly violated the rule by refusing to allow appellant’s counsel to submit evidence relative to the appropriate sentence under the guidelines and thereby deprived appellant of his day in c…
Authorities Cited
- Culbertson v. State, 306 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Jones v. State, 289 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1974)
- Mask v. State, 289 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1973)