JEAN C. NOEL
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Jean Claude Noel was entitled to resentencing following a Florida Supreme Court decision. The circuit court conducted resentencing at a status conference hearing noticed only as a status check, rather than as a sentencing hearing. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the defendant was not provided adequate notice that sentencing would occur at the hearing.
A defendant has a due process right to receive notice before a sentencing hearing so that defense counsel can prepare challenges to evidence the state plans to offer in support of sentencing. The court reversed the sentence and remanded for de novo resentencing at a properly noticed sentencing hearing.
[1] A defendant is entitled to advance notice that a hearing will result in sentencing so that defense counsel may prepare to challenge evidence the state plans to offer in s…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNoel received a remand for resentencing from the Florida Supreme Court. At a status hearing noticed for November 2, 2016, the circuit court resentence…
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 De Novo Resentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, J. The Supreme Court held that Jean Claude Noel was “entitled to a resentencing.” Noel v. State, 191 So. 3d 370, 380 (Fla. 2016). On remand to this court, we sent the case to the circuit court for resentencing. Noel v. State, 192 So. 3d 90, 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Back in the circuit court, a public defender was appointed to represent Noel. The newly appointed counsel noticed a status hearing for November 2, 2016, before the circuit court.
At the status hearing, Noel was resentenced by the court. Defense counsel adequately preserved an objection to sentencing at a status conference not noticed as a sentencing hearing.
A defendant has “the right to notice of the sentencing hearing and notice that any new sentence is appealable.” Stang v. State, 24 So. 3d 566, 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); see also Frison v. State, 76 So. 3d 1103, 1104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). “A defendant must receive notice before the sentencing hearing, so that defense counsel can prepare any challenges to the evidence the state plans to offer in support.” Brown v. State, 189 So. 3d 837, 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). An essential part of due process is that “any relief granted at a hearing be within the kind of relief sought by the notice given for hearing.” Khan v. Dep’t of Revenue, 901 So. 2d 992, 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
The November 2, 2016 hearing was noticed as a status check, not a sentencing.
We reverse the sentence and remand to the circuit court for de novo resentencing at a noticed sentencing hearing. See State v. Fleming, 61 So. 3d 399, 406 (Fla. 2011). Reversed and remanded. FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Fleming, 61 So. 3d 399 (Fla. 2011)
- Stang v. State, 24 So. 3d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Noel v. State, 191 So. 3d 370 (Fla. 2016)
- Frison v. State, 76 So. 3d 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- Najeeb Khan v. Dep't OF Revenue, 901 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Brown v. State, 189 So. 3d 837 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Noel v. State, 192 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- McCRAY v. State, 192 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)