LARRY WALDO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
LARRY WALDO, APPELLANT,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
781 So. 2d 1198
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2001)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The State correctly concedes that the trial court erred in failing to appoint counsel to represent defendant, Larry Waldo, at his resentencing hearing. Resentencing is a critical stage in which a defendant has the right to be present and has the right to have the assistance of counsel. See Chestnut v. State, 578 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Woodson v. State, 111 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Accordingly, we vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing.
Reversed and remanded for resentencing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Duhart v. State, 858 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…efendant’s sentence, imposed on remand from Duhart v. State, 847 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). “Re-sentencing is a critical stage in which a defendant has the right to be present and has the right to have the assistance of counsel.” Waldo v. State, 781 So. 2d 1198, 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); State v. Scott, 439 So. 2d 219, 220 (Fla.l983)(defendant has right to be present at re-sentencing and to be represented by counsel). The trial court erred in re-sentencing defendant when defendant was not present or represe…
Authorities Cited
- Chestnut v. State, 578 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)