R.M.T., 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.
A juvenile appealed a disposition order imposing probation for cannabis possession after a bench trial. The trial court admitted it imposed probation instead of a judicial warning because it believed the juvenile lied on the stand. The appellate court reversed, holding that a sentencing court cannot base its disposition on a defendant's truthfulness at trial.
A trial court errs and denies a defendant due process by basing a sentence or disposition on the defendant's perceived lack of truthfulness at trial. The court reversed the disposition order and remanded for re-sentencing before a different judge.
[1] A trial court errs and denies a defendant due process by improperly considering the truthfulness of testimony at trial when imposing sentence.
[2] A sentencing court cannot base its determination of punishment on the perceived lack of truthfulness of a defendant's testimony.
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“A court may not rely on a defendant's lack of truthfulness in imposing sentence.”
Establishes the core legal principle that truthfulness cannot be a factor in sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.M.T., a juvenile, was charged with possession of cannabis. Following a bench trial, the trial court withheld adjudication of delinquency but imposed…
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 Appeal From Disposition Order cases and more on FLexlaw
R.M.T., a juvenile, challenges a disposition order and the withholding of an adjudication of delinquency following a bench trial for possession of cannabis. Because the court improperly considered R.M.T.’s truthfulness during sentencing, we reverse the disposition order and remand for re-sentencing.
During trial,- the court prompted R.M.T. to tell the truth about what happened dur*442ing the events giving rise to the charges in this case. The court withheld adjudication of delinquency and imposed probation, stating that it would have given R.M.T. only a judicial warning but instead imposed probation because the court felt R.M.T. had lied on the stand.
We have held that a trial court errs and denies the defendant due process by improperly considering truthfulness of testimony at trial. Hannum, v. State, 13 So.3d 132, 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“A court may not rely on a defendant’s lack of truthfulness in imposing sentence....”); see also Diaz v. State, 106 So.3d 515, 516 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“[A] trial court cannot base a sentence on the truthfulness of the defendant’s testimony.”); Smith v. State, 62 So.3d 698, 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“It is also improper for the court to consider the truthfulness of a defendant’s testimony when imposing sentence.”). However, we note that “[tjhere is no protected right to commit perjury.” Brown v. State, 27 So.3d 181, 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (Kelly, J., concurring) (quoting U.S. v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41, 54, 98 S.Ct. 2610, 57 L.Ed.2d 582 (1978)). And a sentencing court can base its determinations on a broad range of factors. Bracero v. State, 10 So.3d 664, 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
In this case, however, it is clear that the court subjected R.M.T. to a greater punishment based on its conclusion that R.M.T. failed to tell the truth. The judge clearly stated R.M.T. would only have received a judicial warning if the court had felt R.M.T. was truthful in his testimony: “[T]he reason I’m giving [R.M.T.] probation is because he didn’t tell the truth.... There is one person that is definitely lying in this courtroom today. He’s ... sitting next to you, and I’m not talking about co-counsel either.” In so stating, the court went beyond merely considering the fact that it felt R.M.T. was untruthful and its statements became retaliatory. Because the court erred in considering impermissible factors in sentencing, we reverse the disposition order and remand for resen-tencing before a different judge.
BLACK, J., Concurs.
KELLY, J., Concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 164 So. 3d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…d at 516, while there is no protected right to commit perjury and a trial court can consider a wide range of information at sentencing, such improper factors as assertions of innocence and truthfulness cannot be considered. See also R.M.T. v. State, 157 So. 3d 441, 442 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1978)
- Bracero v. State, 10 So. 3d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Hannum v. State, 13 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Boyd v. State, 13 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Smith v. State, 62 So. 3d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Glenford Brown v. State, 27 So. 3d 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Diaz v. State, 106 So. 3d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)