MOYE SCRUGGS, 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.
Moye Scruggs appeals his sentence for sexual battery after his probation was revoked. The court held that the trial judge violated Florida criminal procedure rules by refusing to hear evidence and argument regarding sentencing, requiring reversal and resentencing.
The trial court violated Rule 3.720(b) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which mandatorily requires trial courts to entertain submissions and evidence by the parties relevant to sentencing. This denial deprived the appellant of his day in court.
[1] A trial court must entertain submissions and evidence by the parties that are relevant to the sentence.
[2] A defendant is entitled to present evidence to rebut testimony presented by the state at a sentencing hearing, particularly before a new judge unfamiliar with the case.
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“Rule 3.720(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides that at sentencing a trial court "shall entertain submissions and evidence by the parties which are relevant to the sentence." The language of the rule is mandatory.”
Establishes the mandatory nature of the rule requiring courts to hear sentencing evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn January 1983, Scruggs pled nolo contendere to sexual battery and received two years probation. He violated his probation and was adjudicated guilty…
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 Appeal Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, EDWARD F. (Ret.) Judge.
Appellant Moye Scruggs appeals from his final judgment and sentence for sexual battery. As his sole point on appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred by refusing to allow him to present evidence or argument relative to sentencing. We agree.
In January of 1983, appellant pled nolo contendere to a charge of sexual battery and received two years probation. As a result of a violation of his probation, appellant was adjudicated guilty of the sexual battery and sentenced to five and a half years in prison.
At the hearing on the violation of probation, the following colloquy occurred.
THE COURT: We’re talking now about how long you’re going to be gone, Mr. Scruggs. Anything else you want to say? The Court at this time revokes your probationf,] and it is the judgment, order, and sentence of the Court that you be adjudicated guilty of the offense for which you were on probation and confined in the Florida State Prison for a term of five and one half years therefor with credit for whatever time you may have already served.
MR. STONE: Your Honor, may we be allowed to be heard as to the sentencing?
THE COURT: Okay. What?
MR. STONE: Your Honor, the Court allowed me to look at the probation file that had been drawn up. Your Honor, the probation file has a guideline work sheet.
THE COURT: If you think there is some error in the numbers[,] appeal it. Don’t try to go into that here this morning. I gave you the bottom of the range that we’re operating in which is probably the top of the lower range so—
MR. STONE: Your Honor, my position is that he falls in the position of the three and a half to four year range[,] and I feel that this is the—
THE COURT: Appeal it. Let's don’t worry about it, right—
MR. STONE: For the record, Your Honor, is the Court — it is within the guidelines or the Court’s going outside the guide—
THE COURT: It is the guidelines, five and a half.
MR. STONE: For the record, Your Honor, I am going to have to object for not only because I can’t be heard as to what the guidelines should be but there’s been no evidence introduced or rebutted as to what his prior record is.
THE COURT: Okay.
Rule 3.720(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides that at sentencing a trial 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 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 court.
Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Quilla Elkins v. State, 489 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…articulate them at the sentencing hearing is an additional error and ground to reverse the sentence in this case as argued by appellant. This is in contrast to the situations in State v. Hohl, 431 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) and Scruggs v. State, 463 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) where the accuracy of the guidelines scoresheet was in issue, and one party was denied the right to hear and rebut evidence presented to the court by the other party. However, as in this case, a defendant’s rights are normally ade…
-
Davis v. State, 642 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…this judicial discretion, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule 3.720(b), requires the trial court to allow a defendant to offer any relevant evidence that may mitigate a sentence or deter sentencing as an habitual offender. See Scruggs v. State, 463 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Hargis v. State, 451 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Miller v. State, 435 So. 2d 258, 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Here, the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to allow the appellant to present the mitigating circumst…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hohl, 431 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Jones v. State, 289 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1974)
- Mask v. State, 289 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1973)
- Riley v. State, 423 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)