LUIS FUNDORA MORENO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2015-07-08
No. 3D14-1395
Before SUAREZ, C.J., and LAGOA and FERNANDEZ, JJ.
167 So. 3d 522 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2015) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
SUAREZ, C.J.

Confession of Error

SUAREZ, C.J.

Upon the appellee’s well taken confession of error, we affirm the revocation of the appellant’s community control, but remand the case for the limited purpose of holding a new sentencing hearing with an offer of counsel consistent with the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.111(d)(5).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Moreno v. State, 232 So. 3d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
    …Moreno’s community control, but reversed the sentence because the trial court did not offer Moreno the assistance of counsel before the sentencing portion of the hearing as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.111(d)(5). Moreno v. State, 167 So. 3d 522, 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (confession of error). (Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.111(d)(5) provides that if a defendant, as here, waives his right to counsel, “the offer of assistance of counsel shall. be renewed by the court at each subsequent…
  • Peaslee v. Perrine, 202 So. 3d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
    …would serve no valid purpose,” Alkhoury v. Alkhoury, 54 So. 3d 641, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), we hold that the trial court erred in not affording Appellant a meaningful opportunity to be heard before summarily denying his motion. See Bennett v. Abdo, 167 So. 3d 522, 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Carrozza v. Stowers, 153 So. 3d 340, 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Ramirez v. Teutsch, 134 So. 3d 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Goodwin v. Whitley, 103 So. 3d 932, 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Kugler v. Joosten, 58 So. 3d 323 (Fla. 1st DC…
  • Alston v. Sheimira Haines, 215 So. 3d 1292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
    …earing. We reverse. We have previously addressed this issue in similar contexts and concluded that an evidentiary hearing is required on a motion to modify or dissolve an injunction when the motion is legally sufficient. See, e.g., Bennett v. Abdo, 167 So. 3d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Raymonvil v. Lewis, 46 So. 3d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Because Alston’s motion was legally sufficient in this case, he was entitled to an opportunity to be heard. Cf. Woolley v. Nelsen, 183 So. 3d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw