McMullon v. State
This text of 129 So. 3d 500 (McMullon 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.
Opinion
On appeal, Appellant raised two issues. First, Appellant asserted that the trial court erred in revoking his probation. Alternatively, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in resentencing him, following the probation revocation and after granting his 3.800 motion, when Appellant and his counsel were not present at the hearing. The State properly concedes that Appellant had a right to be present at a resentencing hearing pursuant to a successful 3.800(b) motion. See Cross v. State, 18 So.3d 1235, 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); see also McGough v. State, 876 So.2d 26, 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).
REVERSED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
129 So. 3d 500, 2014 WL 84972, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmullon-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.