Adkison v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Adkison v. State

133 So. 3d 607, 2014 WL 860563, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2969

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 4, 2014

DocketNo. 1D12-1930

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 133 So. 3d 607 (Adkison v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adkison v. State, 133 So. 3d 607, 2014 WL 860563, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2969 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Terry Adkison, Appellant, appeals from his convictions and sentences for three counts of sexual battery with a deadly weapon. He raises two issues, only one of which merits reversal. We affirm Appellant’s convictions but vacate his sentences and remand for resentencing because the court’s oral pronouncement “can be reasonably 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 Dumas v. State, 134 So.3d 1048 (Fla. Feb. 8, 2013); Jackson v. State, 39 So.3d 427, 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). This error requires resentencing before a different judge. Jackson, 39 So.3d at 428.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED with instructions to resentence Appellant before a different judge.

BENTON, PADOVANO, and RAY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Terry Adkison, Appellant, appeals from his convictions and sentences for three counts of sexual battery with a deadly weapon. He raises two issues, only one of which merits reversal. We affirm Appellant’s convictions but vacate his sentences and remand for resentencing because the court’s oral pronouncement “can be reasonably 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 Dumas v. State, 134 So.3d 1048 (Fla. Feb. 8, 2013); Jackson v. State, 39 So.3d 427, 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). This error requires resentencing before a different judge. Jackson, 39 So.3d at 428.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED with instructions to resentence Appellant before a different judge.

BENTON, PADOVANO, and RAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 So. 3d 607, 2014 WL 860563, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adkison-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack