DEMOND DUMAS, 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.
Demond Dumas challenged his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial court committed fundamental error by considering his lack of remorse when imposing sentence. The court agreed that considering remorse violates due process rights and reversed the sentence while affirming the conviction.
A lack of remorse or failure to accept responsibility may not be considered by the trial court when fashioning a sentence. The trial court's consideration of Dumas's lack of remorse and claim of innocence violated his due process rights. Dumas is entitled to resentencing before a different judge.
[1] A trial court commits fundamental error when it considers a defendant's lack of remorse or failure to accept responsibility in imposing a sentence.
[2] A sentence conditioned, in whole or in part, on a defendant's lack of remorse or claim of innocence violates due process rights.
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 lack of remorse or a failure to accept responsibility may not be considered by the trial court when fashioning an appropriate sentence.”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle that remorse cannot be a sentencing factor.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDemond Dumas was convicted at trial. During sentencing, the trial court specifically referenced Appellant's lack of remorse and his continued protesta…
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 Fundamental Error In Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Demond Dumas, challenges his conviction and sentence on two grounds, only one of which has merit. Appellant argues that the trial court committed fundamental error by considering whether he expressed remorse when imposing his sentence. We agree and reverse.
A lack of remorse or a failure to accept responsibility may not be considered by the trial court when fashioning an appropriate sentence. Green v. State, 84 So.3d 1169, 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). In this case, the trial court specifically referenced Appellant’s lack of remorse and his continued protestation of innocence when it announced Appellant’s sentence. The court’s statement can reasonably be read only as conditioning the sentence, at least in part, on Appellant’s lack of remorse and claim of innocence, which is a violation of Appellant’s due process rights. See Jackson v. State, 39 So.3d 427, 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (reversing a sentence because the trial court improperly based the defendant’s sentence on his lack of remorse); Nawaz v. State, 28 So.3d 122, 124-25 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (finding that fundamental error occurred when the trial court based *1049a sentence partly on an impermissible ground); Whitmore v. State, 27 So.3d 168, 169-72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (concluding that fundamental error occurred when the court based its sentence on the defendant’s lack of remorse and refusal to accept responsibility). Appellant is entitled to re-sentencing before a different judge. Jackson, 39 So.3d at 428.
We AFFIRM the conviction, VACATE the sentence, and REMAND with instructions to resentence Appellant before a different judge.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PADOVANO, ROWE, and RAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hayes v. State, 150 So. 3d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…eversed numerous sentences due to fundamental error where the comments of the sentencing judge showed that the court considered the defendants’ lack of remorse and refusal to admit guilt in determining the length of the sentence. See Dumas v. State, 134 So. 3d 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Jackson [*252] v. State, 39 So. 3d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (citing multiple cases therein). While it is fundamental error to punish a defendant for exercising his or her constitutional rights, we decline to hold that any mentio…
-
Davis v. State, 268 So. 3d 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
-
Shepard v. State, 227 So. 3d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…rguments in the sentencing process are reviewed for fundamental error. Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562, 574 (Fla. 2008). This Court has held that fundamental error occurs when a trial court bases a sentence on impermissible grounds. Dumas v. State, 134 So. 3d 1048, 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). “Although an appellate court generally may not review a sentence that is within statutory limits under the Criminal Punishment Code, an exception exists, when the trial court considers constitutionally impermissible factor…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Irfan Nawaz v. State, 28 So. 3d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Jackson v. State, 39 So. 3d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Whitmore v. State, 27 So. 3d 168 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Green v. State, 84 So. 3d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)