ZABRA BENNETT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
ZABRA BENNETT, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
974 So. 2d 578
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2008)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 5 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The State properly concedes the trial court committed error by imposing sentence upon appellant without first conducting a sentencing hearing, as appellant requested. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.720(b); State v. Scott, 439 So. 2d 219, 221 (Fla.1983). We REVERSE appellant’s sentence and REMAND for the trial court to conduct a sentencing hearing, during which appellant shall be “entitled to show legal cause why sentence should not be pronounced and to submit evidence relevant to the sentence.” Id.
KAHN, WEBSTER and ROBERTS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Samori K. Walden v. State, 112 So. 3d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…our supreme court has applied rule 3.800(a) to correct the imposition of costs not orally imposed. Two cases have used rule 3.800(a) to strike costs not orally pronounced. See Strickland v. State, 56 So. 3d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Benner v. State, 974 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Strickland relied on Williams. We certify conflict with those cases. We therefore affirm the summary denial of the motion to correct a sentencing error, concluding that such errors in the assessment of costs, even if not orally…
-
Pringle v. State, 6 So. 3d 673 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…ion of his counsel who asked for a short continuance. Counsel claimed he and his client were not ready to present mitigation evidence and had not been provided a scoresheet. This was error and requires a new sentencing hearing. See Bennett v. State, 974 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (reversing for a hearing because the circuit court sentenced the defendant without first conducting a hearing as defendant requested); see also Davenport v. State, 787 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (reversing for a new sentencing…
-
Branch v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…a. 4th DCA 2013) (“[T]he unauthorized imposition of costs does not rise to the level of an illegal sentence.”). Even so, in reaching the conclusion in its Walden decision, the Fourth District certified conflict with our decision in Benner v. State, 974 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). See 112 So. 3d at 579. The Fourth District described our decision in Benner as approving the use of rule 3.800(a) to strike costs not orally pronounced. Id. at 580. But this was a misreading of Benner. In Benner, the defendant…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Scott, 439 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1983)