Duvalt v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Duvalt v. State

805 So. 2d 834, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11075, 2001 WL 883003

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 8, 2001

DocketNo. 2D00-4020

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 805 So. 2d 834 (Duvalt 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

Duvalt v. State, 805 So. 2d 834, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11075, 2001 WL 883003 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

STRINGER, Judge.

Appellant, Annette Duvalt, challenges her sentence for burglary and robbery imposed after the trial court granted her motion to correct illegal sentence based on Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). We agree with appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in failing to allow her the opportunity to challenge a prior conviction included on her sentencing scoresheet. Once the trial court determined that re-sentencing was appropriate, appellant was entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing and could challenge a prior conviction even though the conviction had not been previously challenged. See Baldwin v. State, 700 So.2d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); St. Lawrence v. State, 785 So.2d 728 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Accordingly, we remand this case for resentencing. At resentencing, if the State is unable to corroborate appellant’s challenged prior conviction, she should be resentenced under a new score-sheet.

[835]*835Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.

NORTHCUTT, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., Concur.

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

STRINGER, Judge.

Appellant, Annette Duvalt, challenges her sentence for burglary and robbery imposed after the trial court granted her motion to correct illegal sentence based on Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). We agree with appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in failing to allow her the opportunity to challenge a prior conviction included on her sentencing scoresheet. Once the trial court determined that re-sentencing was appropriate, appellant was entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing and could challenge a prior conviction even though the conviction had not been previously challenged. See Baldwin v. State, 700 So.2d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); St. Lawrence v. State, 785 So.2d 728 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Accordingly, we remand this case for resentencing. At resentencing, if the State is unable to corroborate appellant’s challenged prior conviction, she should be resentenced under a new score-sheet.

[835]*835Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.

NORTHCUTT, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

805 So. 2d 834, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11075, 2001 WL 883003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duvalt-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack