DAVID HODIERNE, 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.
David Hodierne was convicted of home invasion robbery with a deadly weapon while wearing a mask. The appellate court affirmed his conviction but reversed his sentence because the trial court improperly prevented him from fully presenting his statement before sentencing in violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(b).
The trial court violated Hodierne's mandatory right under Rule 3.720(b) to make a full statement and present argument to the court before sentencing. The conviction is affirmed, but the sentence is reversed and remanded for a new sentencing hearing where Hodierne may present his complete statement and any other relevant evidence or submissions.
[1] A sentencing court must entertain submissions and evidence from the parties that are relevant to the sentence, as mandated by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(b).
[2] A defendant is entitled to make a statement and present argument to the court at sentencing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(b).
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“Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(b) provides that the sentencing court "shall entertain submissions and evidence by the parties that are relevant to the sentence." The language of the rule is mandatory”
Establishes the mandatory nature of the sentencing court's obligation to consider defendant submissions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHodierne was convicted of home invasion robbery with a deadly weapon while wearing a mask. At the sentencing hearing, Hodierne began reading a prepare…
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.
David Hodierne challenges his judgment and sentence for home invasion robbery with a deadly weapon while wearing a mask. We affirm the judgment without comment. However, because Hodierne was denied the opportunity to give his full statement to the court before he was sentenced, we reverse his sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(b) provides that the sentencing court “shall entertain submissions and evidence by the parties that are relevant to the sentence.” The language of the rule is mandatory, 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 Hodierne from reading his entire statement and instead instructed that the written statement be entered into evidence. The court immediately proceeded to sentence Hodierne to the maximum term, life in prison. It is apparent from the record that the court did not consider the entirety of Hodierne’s statement; this was error. See Goldberg v. State, 65 So.3d 115, 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (reversing and remanding for resen-tencing where the trial court improperly denied the defendant his rule 3.720 right to submit evidence when it refused to allow the defendant to present rebuttal evidence at the continuation of the sentencing hearing and sentenced defendant without consideration of the additional evidence).
And contrary to the State’s contention, it is not the legality of Hodierne’s sentence that is at issue; rather, it is due process and “[r]especting the right of the defendant to address the court [which] ‘maximizes] the perceived equity of the process.’ ” Ventura v. State, 741 So.2d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (third alteration in original) (quoting Standards for Criminal Justice § 18-5.17 cmt. at 208 (3d ed. 1994)).
Therefore, we reverse Hodierne’s sentence and remand for the trial court to hold a sentencing hearing at which Hod-ierne shall be permitted to present the entirety of his statement and any other evidence or submission relevant to the sentence, as provided by rule 3.720(b).
Conviction affirmed; sentence reversed and remanded with directions.
KHOUZAM, J., and BAUMANN, HERBERT J., Jr., Associate Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Serna v. State, 264 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
-
Goudreau v. State, 263 So. 3d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
-
Valdimir Morrobel v. State (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Culbertson v. State, 306 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Jones v. State, 289 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1974)
- Mask v. State, 289 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1973)
- Abusaid v. Polefrone, 741 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Davenport v. State, 787 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Ventura v. State, 741 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Goldberg v. State, 65 So. 3d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)