Teryleisha Wright v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Teryleisha Wright v. State

154 So. 3d 1189, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 187, 2015 WL 71831

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 7, 2015

Docket4D13-642

StatusPublished

This text of 154 So. 3d 1189 (Teryleisha Wright 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

Teryleisha Wright v. State, 154 So. 3d 1189, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 187, 2015 WL 71831 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

DAMOORGIAN, C.J.

Teryleisha Wright appeals her judgment and sentence for one count of attempted first degree murder with a firearm raising two issues for our consideration. We affirm appellant’s judgment and sentence but write to address appellant’s argument that the trial court violated her due process right by sentencing her to a 25-year minimum mandatory on paper without orally pronouncing that it was doing so at her sentencing hearing. 1

“ ‘One of the most basic tenets of Florida law is the requirement that all proceedings affecting life, liberty, or property must be'conducted according to due process,’ which includes a ‘reasonable opportunity to be heard.’ ” Jackson v. State, 767 So.2d 1156, 1159 (Fla.2000) (quoting Scull v. State, 569 So.2d 1251, 1252 (Fla. 1990)). Therefore, “[cjriminal defendants have a due process fight to be physically present in all critical stages of trial.” Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343, 351 (Fla. 2001). This “right to be present extends to the hearing where her sentence will be reconsidered” because sentencing is “a critical stage of every criminal proceeding.” Jackson, 767 So.2d at 1160. Accordingly, if a defendant’s sentence is subsequently increased due to a court’s failure to take into account a minimum mandatory at the original sentencing hearing, the defendant must be present when the sentence is modified.' Dunbar v. State, 89 So.3d 901, 907 (Fla.2012).

Here, the transcript of Appellant’s sentencing hearing reflects that the court expressed Appellant was subject to a 25- *1191 year mandatory minimum. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not violate appellant’s due process right and affirm the judgment and sentence in all respects.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

1

. Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the gun and ammunition found at her mother’s hotel.

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

DAMOORGIAN, C.J.

Teryleisha Wright appeals her judgment and sentence for one count of attempted first degree murder with a firearm raising two issues for our consideration. We affirm appellant’s judgment and sentence but write to address appellant’s argument that the trial court violated her due process right by sentencing her to a 25-year minimum mandatory on paper without orally pronouncing that it was doing so at her sentencing hearing. 1

“ ‘One of the most basic tenets of Florida law is the requirement that all proceedings affecting life, liberty, or property must be'conducted according to due process,’ which includes a ‘reasonable opportunity to be heard.’ ” Jackson v. State, 767 So.2d 1156, 1159 (Fla.2000) (quoting Scull v. State, 569 So.2d 1251, 1252 (Fla. 1990)). Therefore, “[cjriminal defendants have a due process fight to be physically present in all critical stages of trial.” Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343, 351 (Fla. 2001). This “right to be present extends to the hearing where her sentence will be reconsidered” because sentencing is “a critical stage of every criminal proceeding.” Jackson, 767 So.2d at 1160. Accordingly, if a defendant’s sentence is subsequently increased due to a court’s failure to take into account a minimum mandatory at the original sentencing hearing, the defendant must be present when the sentence is modified.' Dunbar v. State, 89 So.3d 901, 907 (Fla.2012).

Here, the transcript of Appellant’s sentencing hearing reflects that the court expressed Appellant was subject to a 25- *1191 year mandatory minimum. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not violate appellant’s due process right and affirm the judgment and sentence in all respects.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

1

. Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the gun and ammunition found at her mother’s hotel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 So. 3d 1189, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 187, 2015 WL 71831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teryleisha-wright-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack