Colette v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Colette v. State

881 So. 2d 41, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 12107, 2004 WL 1836109

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 18, 2004

DocketNo. 1D03-3681

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 881 So. 2d 41 (Colette 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

Colette v. State, 881 So. 2d 41, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 12107, 2004 WL 1836109 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWNING, J.

Brian Patrick Colette (Appellant) challenges the denial of his motion to correct sentencing error. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(1)(B) (stating that motion to correct sentencing error is deemed summarily denied if no order is filed within 60 days from filing of motion). In pertinent part, he contends that the trial court reversibly erred in refusing to grant his request to allow his parents to present mitigating evidence. Because the trial court refused to “entertain submissions and evidence by the parties that are relevant to the sentence,” contrary to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(b), we reverse and remand for further proceedings. See Petrucelli v. State, 855 So.2d 150 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Davenport v. State, 787 So.2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); State v. Hohl, 431 So.2d 707, 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). If the State requests an opportunity to do so, it should be allowed to present aggravating evidence. See State v. Munson, 604 So.2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). We instruct the trial court on remand also to correct the apparent clerical error involving the signing and attachment of the wrong scoresheet to the judgment/sentence.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings, with instructions.

WOLF, C.J. and HAWKES, J., concur.

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

BROWNING, J.

Brian Patrick Colette (Appellant) challenges the denial of his motion to correct sentencing error. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(1)(B) (stating that motion to correct sentencing error is deemed summarily denied if no order is filed within 60 days from filing of motion). In pertinent part, he contends that the trial court reversibly erred in refusing to grant his request to allow his parents to present mitigating evidence. Because the trial court refused to “entertain submissions and evidence by the parties that are relevant to the sentence,” contrary to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(b), we reverse and remand for further proceedings. See Petrucelli v. State, 855 So.2d 150 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Davenport v. State, 787 So.2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); State v. Hohl, 431 So.2d 707, 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). If the State requests an opportunity to do so, it should be allowed to present aggravating evidence. See State v. Munson, 604 So.2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). We instruct the trial court on remand also to correct the apparent clerical error involving the signing and attachment of the wrong scoresheet to the judgment/sentence.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings, with instructions.

WOLF, C.J. and HAWKES, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

881 So. 2d 41, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 12107, 2004 WL 1836109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colette-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack