CLARENCE PRINGLE, 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.
Clarence Pringle was convicted of sexual battery and lewd and lascivious molestation of a teenage girl and designated a sexual predator. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence and sexual predator designation because the trial court improperly sentenced him immediately after the guilty verdict without allowing adequate time for defense counsel to present mitigation evidence or obtain a sentencing scoresheet.
The conviction is affirmed. The sentence is reversed and the case is remanded for a new sentencing hearing because the trial court denied defense counsel's request for a continuance to prepare mitigation evidence and obtain a sentencing scoresheet. The sexual predator designation is vacated and remanded because the record does not establish whether Pringle's predicate offenses qualify him as a sexual predator under Florida law.
[1] A new sentencing hearing is required when a circuit court proceeds to sentence a defendant immediately after a guilty verdict, over the objection of counsel who requests…
[2] A sexual predator designation must be vacated and remanded for resentencing when the record is incomplete and does not demonstrate that the defendant's predicate offenses…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A new sentencing hearing is required because immediately after the jury returned the guilty verdict, the circuit court proceeded to sentence Mr. Pringle over objection of his counsel who asked for a short continuance.”
Establishes the procedural error requiring reversal of sentence—denying continuance request to prepare mitigation evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePringle was accused of sexually molesting a young teenage girl during a family campout. He was tried before a jury on two counts: sexual battery on a …
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 Sentencing Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Clarence Pringle was accused of sexually molesting a young teenage girl while her family and his were on a weekend campout together. He was tried before a jury on two counts: sexual battery on a person twelve years of age or older, a second-degree felony violation of section 794.011(5), Florida Statutes (2006); and lewd and lascivious molestation, a second-degree felony violation of section 800.04(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2006). He was found guilty of both counts, declared a sexual predator, and sentenced to fifteen years’ incarceration on the first count only. He appeals, raising ten issues related to the conviction and two issues relating to the sentence. We affirm the conviction without discussion of the issues relating to it. We reverse the sentence and the sexual predator designation and remand for resentencing.
*674A new sentencing hearing is required because immediately after the jury returned the guilty verdict, the circuit court proceeded to sentence Mr. Pringle over objection 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 hearing because defendant was not allowed to present evidence or speak at the prior sentencing hearing, citing State v. Scott, 439 So.2d 219 (Fla.1983)).
As to Mr. Pringle’s designation as a sexual predator, the State concedes that the record is incomplete and does not show whether Mr. Pringle’s predicate offenses qualify him as a sexual predator under section 775.21(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2006). See Castaneda v. State, 922 So.2d 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Hickey v. State, 915 So.2d 663 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Therefore, we vacate the sexual predator designation and remand for resentencing without prejudice to the State to provide evidence that Mr. Pringle has the predicate offenses.
Conviction affirmed, sentence and sexual predator designation reversed, and cause remanded for resentencing.
WHATLEY and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Scott, 439 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1983)
- Davenport v. State, 787 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Hickey v. State, 915 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Zabra Bennett v. State, 974 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Castaneda v. State, 922 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)