Veal v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Veal v. State

139 So. 3d 508, 2014 WL 2589273, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8815

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 10, 2014

DocketNo. 1D12-6099

StatusPublished

This text of 139 So. 3d 508 (Veal 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

Veal v. State, 139 So. 3d 508, 2014 WL 2589273, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8815 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant argued in a motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) that he had received an unlawful sentence following his conviction for possession of a firearm by an adjudicated juvenile delinquent. The state conceded the sentence was illegal, and the trial court granted the 3.800 motion, then announced it would “do an amended sentencing.” Before pronouncing sentence, the trial court should have, but did not, set a resentenc-[509]*509ing hearing at which the appellant could be present. A criminal defendant is entitled to be present at all “critical stage[s]” of the proceedings. State v. Scott, 439 So.2d 219, 221 (Fla.1983). We remand for the trial court to conduct a second resentenc-ing hearing at which appellant has an opportunity to be present with counsel.

BENTON, WETHERELL, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant argued in a motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) that he had received an unlawful sentence following his conviction for possession of a firearm by an adjudicated juvenile delinquent. The state conceded the sentence was illegal, and the trial court granted the 3.800 motion, then announced it would “do an amended sentencing.” Before pronouncing sentence, the trial court should have, but did not, set a resentenc-[509]*509ing hearing at which the appellant could be present. A criminal defendant is entitled to be present at all “critical stage[s]” of the proceedings. State v. Scott, 439 So.2d 219, 221 (Fla.1983). We remand for the trial court to conduct a second resentenc-ing hearing at which appellant has an opportunity to be present with counsel.

BENTON, WETHERELL, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 So. 3d 508, 2014 WL 2589273, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/veal-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack