RODERICK D. DAVENPORT, 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.
Roderick Davenport appealed his convictions and sentences for cocaine sales and possession near a place of worship. The court affirmed the convictions but reversed the sentences because the trial court violated procedural rules by refusing to allow Davenport to present evidence and arguments during the sentencing hearing.
The trial court erred by refusing to allow Davenport to present evidence and arguments at sentencing. Under Rule 3.720(b), a defendant is entitled to make a statement and present argument regarding the sentence, and this right applies even in cases involving mandatory sentences.
[1] A trial court errs by refusing to allow a defendant the opportunity to present evidence and arguments during a sentencing hearing.
[2] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(b) requires a trial court to entertain submissions and evidence by the parties that are relevant to the sentence.
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 court shall entertain submissions and evidence by the parties that are relevant to the sentence.”
Establishes the mandatory procedural requirement under Rule 3.720(b) that courts must allow parties to present evidence and arguments at sentencing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavenport was convicted of two counts of selling cocaine within 1000 feet of a place of worship and two counts of possession of cocaine. At sentencing…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.720(B) cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Roderick D. Davenport challenges his convictions and sentences for two counts of selling cocaine within 1000 feet of a place of worship and two counts of possession of cocaine. We affirm his convictions without discussion. However, we reverse his sentences and remand for a new sentencing hearing.
We reverse Davenport’s sentences because the trial court erred in refusing to allow Davenport the opportunity to present evidence and arguments during his sentencing hearing. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(b) provides that at a sentencing hearing, “[t]he court shall entertain submissions and evidence by the parties that are relevant to the sentence.” Under this rule, Davenport was entitled to make a statement and present argument to the court. See State v. Scott, 439 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1983) (holding that appellee should have been allowed to submit evidence relevant to his sentence); Tuthill v. State, 478 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (ruling that sentence must be reversed where appellant was not given the opportunity to be heard on the question of the severity of the sentence); State v. Hohl, 431 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also Ventura v. State, 741 So. 2d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (“[T]he opportunity to address the court must be allowed even if the case involves a mandatory sentence.”). Therefore, we reverse Davenport’s sentences and remand for the trial court to hold a sentencing healing at which time the parties shall be permitted to submit evidence relevant to the sentence as provided by rule 3.720(b).
Convictions affirmed, sentences reversed and remanded with directions.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and SILBERMAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hodierne v. State, 141 So. 3d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…tory, Culbertson v. State, 306 So. 2d 142, 143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (citing Mask v. State, 289 So. 2d 385, 387 (Fla.1973)), and “[ujnder this rule, [the defendant is] entitled to make a statement and present argument to the court,” Davenport v. State, 787 So. 2d 32, 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). At his sentencing hearing, Hod-ierne was permitted to begin reading a prepared statement to the court. However, in an attempt to abbreviate the sentencing hearing and apparently return to a trial, the court prevented Hodiern…
-
Smith v. State, 268 So. 3d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…The Trial Court’s Refusal to Allow Defense Counsel to Be Heard Before Imposing the Sentence A trial court’s refusal to hear evidence and argument regarding a sentence constitutes a denial of due process and is fundamental error. Davenport v. State, 787 So. 2d 32, 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Ventura v. State, 741 So. 2d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); see also Colette v. State, 881 So. 2d 41, 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“Because the trial court refused to ‘entertain submissions and evidence by the parties that are rel…
-
Valdimir Morrobel v. State (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Scott, 439 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1983)
- State v. Hohl, 431 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Tuthill v. State, 478 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Abusaid v. Polefrone, 741 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Ventura v. State, 741 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)