Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Plummer v. State

Plummer v. State

969 So. 2d 1158, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 18563, 2007 WL 4126775
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 21, 2007·No. No. 4D07-1194·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

William Plummer, Jr. seeks review of an order that disposed of his rule 3.800(a) motion. We remand for resentencing in connection with one point.

The trial court agreed with Plummer that the violent habitual offender and related mandatory minimum portion of his sentence should be stricken with respect to LT 04-11634. Brooks v. State, 837 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). In so doing, the court did not determine that a resen-tencing hearing was required. We remand for the trial court to conduct a de novo sentencing hearing. See Ross v. State, 901 So.2d 252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); see also Tumblin v. State, 965 So.2d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Granatino v. State, 965 So.2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

STONE, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

Plummer v. State, 969 So. 2d 1158, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 18563, 2007 WL 4126775 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

969 So. 2d 1158 (Plummer v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tumblin v. State
965 So. 2d 354 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Granatino v. State
965 So. 2d 361 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Brooks v. State
837 So. 2d 1125 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Ross v. State
901 So. 2d 252 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)