Davenport v. State

787 So. 2d 32, 2001 WL 120496
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 14, 2001
Docket2D00-1017, 2D00-1018
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 787 So. 2d 32 (Davenport 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
Davenport v. State, 787 So. 2d 32, 2001 WL 120496 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

787 So.2d 32 (2001)

Roderick D. DAVENPORT, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 2D00-1017, 2D00-1018.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 14, 2001.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Tosha Cohen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Diana K. Bock, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

WHATLEY, Judge.

Roderick D. Davenport challenges his convictions and sentences for two counts of selling cocaine within 1000 feet of a place of worship and two counts of possession of cocaine. We affirm his convictions without discussion. However, we reverse his sentences and remand for a new sentencing hearing.

We reverse Davenport's sentences because the trial court erred in refusing to allow Davenport the opportunity to present evidence and arguments during his sentencing hearing. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(b) provides that at a sentencing hearing, "[t]he court shall entertain submissions and evidence by the parties that are relevant to the sentence." Under this rule, Davenport was entitled to make a statement and present argument to the court. See State v. Scott, 439 So.2d 219 (Fla.1983) (holding that appellee should have been allowed to submit evidence relevant to his sentence); Tuthill v. State, 478 So.2d 409 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (ruling that sentence must be reversed where appellant was not given the opportunity to be heard on the question of the severity of the sentence); State v. Hohl, 431 So.2d 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also Ventura v. State, 741 So.2d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) ("[T]he opportunity to address the court must be allowed even if the case involves a mandatory sentence."). Therefore, we reverse Davenport's sentences and remand for the trial court to hold a sentencing hearing at which time the parties shall be permitted to submit evidence relevant to the sentence as provided by rule 3.720(b).

Convictions affirmed, sentences reversed and remanded with directions.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and SILBERMAN, J., concur.

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

Related

Valdimir Morrobel v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2026
Sjon Jones v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2025
Christopher Ray Smith v. State of Florida
268 So. 3d 831 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019)
Hodierne v. State
141 So. 3d 1254 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Pringle v. State
6 So. 3d 673 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Colette v. State
881 So. 2d 41 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
787 So. 2d 32, 2001 WL 120496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davenport-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.