FRANKLIN MONTOYA
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 appellate court reversed a defendant's sentence because the trial court denied the defendant and his counsel an opportunity to present mitigating evidence or arguments before sentencing. The State confessed error, agreeing with the defendant's position.
Yes, the trial court violated the defendant's due process rights by not providing an opportunity to present mitigating evidence and argument prior to sentencing.
[1] A trial court must provide a defendant with an opportunity to present evidence and argument in mitigation before imposing sentence.
[2] A defendant's due process rights are violated when the trial court fails to allow the presentation of mitigating evidence or argument prior to sentencing.
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 defendant argues the trial court violated his due process rights by failing to provide an opportunity to present evidence and argument in mitigation prior to imposing sentence.”
States the core legal argument on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant pleaded no contest to felony battery and was placed on community control and probation. After admitting to violations, the trial court r…
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 Probation Violation Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
On Confession of Error
MAY, J.
The defendant appeals his sentence for violating probation. He argues the trial court erred in not allowing him or his counsel to present evidence or argument to mitigate the sentence. To its credit, the State has filed a Confession of Error. We reverse.
The State charged the defendant with felony battery. The defendant entered a no contest plea and was sentenced to one year community control followed by four years’ probation. Subsequently, the defendant admitted to violating his probation. The trial court reinstated community control and added GPS monitoring.
The defendant then violated his community control. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the new violations and found the defendant willfully and substantially violated his community control. Immediately thereafter, the trial court began to pronounce sentence when defense counsel stated:
Judge, before you pass sentence, we were advised that we were here for a hearing on the violation of community control. I am not prepared for sentencing. I would like to have the opportunity to present witnesses and possibly a downward departure. You know, I don’t know what’s going to happen with a sentencing. So, I would object and ask that it be set at a separate time for sentencing where I could be provided notice to be able to be prepared for a sentencing.
The trial court noted the objection but proceeded to revoke community control and sentence the defendant to five years in prison.
The defendant argues the trial court violated his due process rights by failing to provide an opportunity to present evidence and argument in mitigation prior to imposing sentence. The State agrees and so do we.
We therefore reverse and remand the case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing before a different judge. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.720(b); Larrieux v. State, 138 So. 3d 1221, 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Schwartzberg v. State, 215 So. 3d 611, 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
Reversed and Remanded.
DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Schwartzberg v. State, 215 So. 3d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
- Pascal Larrieux v. State, 138 So. 3d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)