DENNIS T. HUTTO, 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.
Dennis Hutto appealed his sentencing for driving with a permanently revoked license, challenging the trial court's entry of a sentencing order without a sentencing hearing and without orally pronouncing the sentence in court. The appellate court agreed and remanded for a new sentencing hearing, holding that the trial court violated Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure by entering the sentencing order before the scheduled hearing and depriving the defendant of the opportunity to be heard.
Yes. The trial court violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(b) by depriving the defendant of the opportunity to be heard at the sentencing hearing, and violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.700(b) by failing to orally pronounce the sentence in open court. Every sentence must be pronounced in open court, and a written sentence is merely a record that must conform to the orally pronounced sentence.
[1] A defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard at a sentencing hearing before a sentence is imposed.
[2] A trial court fundamentally errs by entering a sentencing order without conducting a sentencing hearing.
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 new sentencing hearing should be granted if a defendant has not been given an opportunity to be heard.”
Establishes the legal standard that triggers the right to a new sentencing hearing when defendant is deprived of the opportunity to be heard.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHutto pleaded guilty to driving with a permanently revoked license and faced a maximum sentence of five years. A dispute arose over the proper calcula…
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 Oral Pronouncement Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Dennis Hutto, challenges his judgment- and sentence, He argues the trial court fundamentally erred in entering, a sentencing order without conducting a sentencing hearing, and without orally pronouncing the sentence in court. We agree and remand for a new sentencing hearing.
Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of driving with a permanently revoked license. He faced a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment due to numerous prior convictions. On July 15, 2015, at a scheduled sentencing hearing, the State and Appellant acknowledged a dispute as to the appropriate calculation of Appellant’s scoresheet. As a result, the trial court postponed the sentencing hearing to September 17, 2015, at which time the State and Appellant disagreed, as to whether two DUIs should have been included on his proposed scoresheet. Appellant’s counsel requested additional time to research a 2006 hearing transcript regarding one of the DUIs at issue. The trial court granted *529the request and postponed the matter to October 8, 2015, and then again to October 22, 2015. .However, on October 20, 2015, without Appellant present .and two days before the. scheduled reconvening of the sentencing hearing, the trial court entered an order, declaring the State’s scoresheet to be proper, and sentencing Appellant to five years in prison.
Appellant appeared before the trial court on another matter on October 22, the date set for the reconvening of the sentencing hearing. He expressed to the trial court his concern regarding the trial court’s entry of the order deeming as correct the State’s proposed scoresheet. The trial court responded that it had already ruled on the matter, and Appellant could “take the appropriate action” if he disagreed. The sentence imposed in the subject order was not orally discussed or pronounced during this exchange.
A new sentencing hearing should be granted if a defendant has not been given an opportunity to be heard. Dean v. State, 60 So.3d 532, 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citing Ventura v. State, 741 So.2d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)). Here, the trial court granted two extensions of the sentencing hearing to allow the parties to research an issue relating to the score-sheet determination. However, prior to the date the hearing was to be reconvened, and without explanation, the trial court entered a sentencing order. Thus, in violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(b), Appellant was deprived of'the opportunity to be heard at the sentencing hearing regarding a final scoresheet determination. .
“Every sentence ... of the case shall be pronounced in open court.” Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.700(b). A written sentence is merely a record that must conform to the orally pronounced sentence. Justice v. State, 674 So.2d 123, 125 (Fla. 1996). Thus, by entering the sentencing order before concluding the sentencing hearing process, the trial court failed to orally pronounce the sentence and to provide Appellant the opportunity ■ to be heard on the .matter.
Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND to the trial court for a’ new sentencing hearing.
BILBREY, WINSOR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR...
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miles v. State, 343 So. 3d 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…e trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence and the written sentencing documents, the oral pronouncement controls."). That is because "[a] written sentence is merely a record that must conform to the orally pronounced sentence." Hutto v. State, 232 So. 3d 528, 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (citing Justice v. State, 674 So. 2d 123, 125 (Fla. 1996)). At first blush, the trial court's oral pronouncement of a straight twenty-five-year sentence controls over the written sentence reflecting a twenty-five-year mandat…
-
Valdimir Morrobel v. State (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)
-
Harris v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…t implies that the remedy for such an error would be reversal of the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw the plea. This is incorrect, and the remedy for a such a sentencing error would be reversal for resentencing. See Hutto v. State, 232 So. 3d 528, 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (“A new sentencing hearing should be granted if a defendant has not been given an opportunity to be heard.”). Regardless, we must affirm the sentencing done because sufficient process was afforded and 7 because the cou…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Justice v. State, 674 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1996)
- Abusaid v. Polefrone, 741 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Ventura v. State, 741 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Lanham v. State, 60 So. 3d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Dean v. State, 60 So. 3d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)