EDITH J. WILCOX, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CARRIE MAUDE JORDAN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v.

WILLIAM RENE LEVEROCK, COMMERCIAL CARRIER CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By (16 total)

• Peters v. State, 984 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2008)
  …amine adverse witnesses at sentencing to rebut presentence investigation report). The rights available to the defendant awaiting sentencing are limited because the interest at stake at the sentencing stage is limited. See United States v. Giltner, 889 F. 2d 1004, 1008 (11th Cir.1989) (“It is widely recognized that the sole interest being protected at sentencing is the right not to be sentenced on the basis of inaccurate or unreliable information.”); United States v. Espinoza, 481 F. 2d 553, 555 (5th Cir.197…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• BOX v. State, 993 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
  …at 1232. Furthermore, the court cited to cases standing for the proposition that a defendant’s interest at sentencing is that he or she not be sentenced on the basis of unreliable or inaccurate information. See Id. (citing United States v. Giltner, 889 F. 2d 1004, 1008 (11th Cir.1989); United States v. Espinoza, 481 F. 2d 553, 555 (5th Cir.1973)). Comparing a defendant’s limited rights at sentencing to the limited rights of a probationer, the Supreme Court concluded that “[bjecause a probationer has already…
• Ruffin v. State, 683 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
  …al defendant be afforded the opportunity to refute information brought against him at sentencing; it does not require that the defendant be given the opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses to rebut the information. United States v. Giltner, 889 F. 2d 1004, 1008 (11th Cir.1989); United States v. Satterfield, 743 F. 2d 827, 840 (11th Cir.1984) (both finding that a noncapital defendant does not have a constitutional right to call and cross-examine witnesses to rebut information contained in a presentenc…

Authorities Cited

• Wilcox v. Leverock, 548 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 1989)