Henschke v. State

556 So. 2d 409, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2386, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5779, 1989 WL 120474
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 11, 1989
DocketNo. 89-88
StatusPublished

This text of 556 So. 2d 409 (Henschke 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
Henschke v. State, 556 So. 2d 409, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2386, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5779, 1989 WL 120474 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant asserts error in the trial court’s imposition of adult sanctions without complying with the requirements of Section 39.111(7)(d), Florida Statutes. The state candidly concedes error1 but says that it is not necessary to return the defendant to the trial court for resentencing. We disagree. The defendant is entitled to be present at resentencing. See Pickerill v. State, 493 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).

Accordingly, we reverse the sentence and remand with directions to resentence, giving due consideration to the requirements of Section 39.111(7). The defendant shall have the right to be present and be heard at the resentencing.

ERVIN, NIMMONS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State v. Rhoden
448 So. 2d 1013 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1984)
Pickerill v. State
493 So. 2d 1096 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
556 So. 2d 409, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2386, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5779, 1989 WL 120474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henschke-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.