BRIAN PATRICK COLETTE, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a sentencing denial and remanded because the trial court improperly refused to allow the defendant's parents to present mitigating evidence at sentencing, violating Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(b).
A trial court reversibly errs by refusing to entertain submissions and evidence by the parties that are relevant to sentencing.
[1] A trial court must entertain submissions and evidence by the parties that are relevant to sentencing, including mitigating evidence presented by the defendant or his fami…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrian Patrick Colette appealed the denial of his motion to correct sentencing error, contending the trial court refused to allow his parents to presen…
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 Clerical Error cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, J.
Brian Patrick Colette (Appellant) challenges the denial of his motion to correct sentencing error. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(1)(B) (stating that motion to correct sentencing error is deemed summarily denied if no order is filed within 60 days from filing of motion). In pertinent part, he contends that the trial court reversibly erred in refusing to grant his request to allow his parents to present mitigating evidence. Because the trial court refused to “entertain submissions and evidence by the parties that are relevant to the sentence,” contrary to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(b), we reverse and remand for further proceedings. See Petrucelli v. State, 855 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Davenport v. State, 787 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); State v. Hohl, 431 So. 2d 707, 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). If the State requests an opportunity to do so, it should be allowed to present aggravating evidence. See State v. Munson, 604 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). We instruct the trial court on remand also to correct the apparent clerical error involving the signing and attachment of the wrong scoresheet to the judgment/sentence.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings, with instructions.
WOLF, C.J. and HAWKES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hohl, 431 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Petrucelli v. State, 855 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Davenport v. State, 787 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- State v. Munro Michael Munson, 604 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)