SAMUEL SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
A criminal defendant has a fundamental right to be present at resentencing, and failure to afford this right requires reversal.
[1] A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to be present at every critical stage of the proceedings, including a resentencing hearing.
[2] A defendant's presence at a resentencing hearing contributes to the fairness of the procedure, thus triggering the right to be present.
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 intelligenceSamuel Smith was resentenced without being present or represented by counsel. This followed a prior appeal where the sentencing order was reversed.…
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 Right To Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Samuel Smith petitions this Court for a belated appeal from a sentencing order. We grant the belated appeal and reverse the sentencing order. In the underlying case, Smith appealed to this Court from an order of revocation of community control and an order imposing sentence. Smith v. State, 705 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). This Court found that only one of the multiple grounds for the violation was valid. Smith, 705 So. 2d at 1034. On this basis, this Court affirmed the revocation order but reversed the sentencing order instructing that on remand the trial court could “impose the same sentence or exercise its discretion to impose a reduced sentence.” Smith, 705 So. 2d at 1034.
On remand at the resentencing, Smith was not afforded the opportunity to be present. For this reason, Smith challenges his new sentence.
In Jackson v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S53, — So. 2d -, 2000 WL 92119 (Fla. Jan. 27, 2000), the Florida Supreme Court held:
ne of a criminal defendant’s most basic constitutional rights is the right to be present in the courtroom at every critical stage in the proceedings. This right extends to “any stage of the criminal proceeding that is critical to its outcome if [the defendant’s] presence would contribute to the fairness of the procedure.” Because the defendant’s presence will “contribute to the fairness of the procedure,” the right to be present extends to the hearing where her sentence will be reconsidered.
Jackson v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly at S53-54, — So. 2d at-(citations omitted).
Because Smith had a right to be present at resentencing and represented by counsel, we grant Smith’s belated appeal, reverse the sentencing order, and remand this cause to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing where the defendant must be present and represented by counsel. Again, on remand, the trial court can impose the same sentence or exercise its discretion to impose a reduced sentence.
Petition granted; sentencing order reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 781 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…ceive notice of the sentence within the time permitted to file a timely one. Given the state’s concession that it was error for the sentencing to proceed without the defendant, see Levine v. State, 776 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Smith v. State, 754 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), we deem it appropriate hereby both to grant the petition for belated appeal and to determine the case on the merits by vacating the sentence under review. Levine; Smith; see Mizell v. State, 716 So. 2d 829, 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…
-
Aikens v. State, 855 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…errance Aikens appeals from the sentence imposed in this case, as corrected, on October 17, 2002, claiming that he had the right to be, but was not, present at the sentencing hearing. The State properly concedes the issue. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 754 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). The sentence imposed in this matter is, therefore, vacated, and this matter is remanded for the purpose of imposing a guidelines sentence following a sentencing hearing at which both Aikens and his counsel are in attendance. Se…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 705 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)