MARVIN JACOBS, 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.
Conviction affirmed but sentencing reversed because the defendant was not personally present at sentencing via closed-circuit television, which violates Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and costs and public defender fees were imposed on an indigent defendant without prior notice.
A defendant must be personally present at sentencing, not via closed-circuit television, to confer with counsel and receive advice, and costs and public defender fees cannot be imposed on an indigent defendant without prior notice.
[1] A defendant must be personally present at sentencing to confer with counsel, and sentencing via closed-circuit television violates Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure eve…
[2] Costs and public defender fees cannot be imposed on an indigent defendant without prior notice.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“This is essential to permit the defendant to confer with his counsel privately and to have the benefit of his advice.”
Explaining why personal presence at sentencing is required under Rule 3.180(a)(9)
Appellant Marvin Jacobs was in jail at the time of sentencing; his attorney and the sentencing judge were in the courtroom, but communication occurred…
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 Criminal Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s conviction; however, we find reversible error in the sentencing procedure which will require re-sentencing. Appellant was in jail at the time of sentencing. His attorney and the sentencing judge were in the courtroom. Communication was accomplished through closed-circuit television. Such an arrangement is not authorized by rule or statute and is consequently fatally and fundamentally flawed. Rule 3.180(a)(9), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides that a defendant shall be present at the pronouncement of judgment and the imposition of sentence. This is essential to permit the defendant to confer with his counsel privately and to have the benefit of his advice. Further, the rules specifically permit communication by way of audiovisual video camera at first appearances and at the arraignment stage of proceedings. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.130(a) and 3.160(a). Failure to include sentencing as an exception to the “personally present” requirement cannot be deemed mere oversight. Accordingly, we reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing.
We also strike the imposition of costs imposed upon the indigent appellant without prior notice. Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1988); Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984). The requirement that appellant pay the Public Defender’s fee is similarly flawed. Thomas v. State, 486 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
HERSEY, C.J., STONE, J. and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1988)
- Thomas v. State, 486 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)