MANCHESTER INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, APPELLANT,

v.

LUCIUS DUNKLEY AND ANTHONY THOMPSON, APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By

• State v. Scott, 439 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1983)
  …, once the court has determined that the sentence was indeed illegal and the prisoner is entitled to a modification of the original sentence or the imposition of a new sentence, the full panoply of due process considerations attach. Walker v. State, 284 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). This must especially be true in the post- Villery correction of sentences. Unlike most illegal sentences being corrected, the pre- Villery split sentence was legal when imposed, and the court imposing the split sentence had chos…
• Dougherty v. State, 785 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
  …e exception of sentence corrections, it is fundamental error to resentence a defendant in his or her absence. See Ellison v. State, 593 So. 2d 1205, 1206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Keller v. State, 432 So. 2d 672, 673 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Walker v. State, 284 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972). Here, appellant’s original sentence was above the sentence that could be imposed without departure under the 1994 guidelines. As a result, resentencing that involved more than a ministerial act was required. Fundamental error oc…
• Keller v. State, 432 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
  …Fla. 2d DCA 1981), requires the presence of the defendant.2 The state, however, contends that because defense counsel was present and offered testimony in mitigation, the resentencing of Keller in his absence was harmless error. In Walker v. State, 284 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), the court held that the resen-tencing of a defendant in his absence and without a waiver of his right to be present constituted fundamental error. Here, the record shows that Keller affirmatively requested an opportunity to be pr…

Authorities Cited

• Farish v. Lum's, Inc., 267 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1972)