Chesser v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chesser v. State

247 So. 3d 573

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 12, 2018

DocketCase No. 2D16–3391

StatusPublished

This text of 247 So. 3d 573 (Chesser 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

Chesser v. State, 247 So. 3d 573 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

SLEET, Judge.

Brian Chesser appeals the order revoking his probation and his resulting forty-month sentence. He argues that the trial court denied him due process when it interrupted him at the sentencing hearing and refused to listen to his statements before sentencing him. We agree. See Amason v. State, 76 So.3d 374, 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) ("A probationer must have an opportunity to present mitigating evidence and argue for sentencing alternatives when the court has sentencing discretion." (citing Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 614, 105 S.Ct. 2254, 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985) )); see also Johnpier v. State, 89 So.3d 996, 996 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (reversing probationer's sentence when "the trial court erred by refusing to hear any argument on sentencing").

The trial court properly accepted Chesser's admission to the violation. However, we must reverse the revocation of Chesser's probation and his resulting sentence and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

VILLANTI and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.

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

SLEET, Judge.

Brian Chesser appeals the order revoking his probation and his resulting forty-month sentence. He argues that the trial court denied him due process when it interrupted him at the sentencing hearing and refused to listen to his statements before sentencing him. We agree. See Amason v. State, 76 So.3d 374, 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) ("A probationer must have an opportunity to present mitigating evidence and argue for sentencing alternatives when the court has sentencing discretion." (citing Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 614, 105 S.Ct. 2254, 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985) )); see also Johnpier v. State, 89 So.3d 996, 996 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (reversing probationer's sentence when "the trial court erred by refusing to hear any argument on sentencing").

The trial court properly accepted Chesser's admission to the violation. However, we must reverse the revocation of Chesser's probation and his resulting sentence and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

VILLANTI and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 So. 3d 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chesser-v-state-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack