H.B.T. AND A.J.H., APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The trial court erred by precluding defendants from presenting evidence in mitigation of sentence.
Defendants pled guilty to trafficking in cocaine and sought to present evidence of substantial assistance to police for mitigation at sentencing. The …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mitigation Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, Judge.
The defendants appeal their orders of sentence. These orders were entered by the trial court following sentencing hearings held nearly a year and a half after the defendants had each pled guilty to one count of trafficking in cocaine. We reverse.
At the sentencing hearings, the state recommended a three-year minimum mandatory sentence and a waiver of the statutory fine because the defendants had rendered substantial assistance to the police. In addition, the defendants wanted to present other evidence in further mitigation of their sentence. Specifically, the defendants wanted the two police officers to whom the defendants had rendered their assistance to be permitted to testify and to recommend probation for the defendants in recognition of their very substantial assistance. The trial court would not allow these police officers to testify, and instead, imposed the state’s recommendation of a three-year minimum mandatory sentence and waiver of the fine.
We find that the trial judge erroneously precluded the defendants from presenting any evidence in mitigation of sentence as is required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(b). State v. Hohl, 431 So. 2d 707, 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
The defendants’ contentions that the judge is biased and that they are entitled to be resentenced by another judge are without merit. Therefore, we reverse and remand for resentencing.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Serna v. State, 264 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…might include the defendant’s own testimony). See Goldberg v. State, 65 So. 3d 115, 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that the defendant was entitled to present rebuttal to the State’s evidence that the defendant lacked remorse); H.B.T. v. State, 495 So. 2d 919, 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (reversing because the trial court refused the defendant’s request to present the testimony of two police officers to buttress the defense’s substantial assistance argument as mitigation of sentence evidence). “The…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hohl, 431 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)