Tuthill v. State, 85-82
Decision Date | 05 November 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 85-82,85-82 |
Citation | 478 So.2d 409,10 Fla. L. Weekly 2483 |
Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2483 Harold TUTHILL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash, Block & England and Kevin Emas and Theodore Klein, Miami, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Richard E. Doran, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
The record reveals that appellant Tuthill was not afforded an opportunity to be heard on the question of the severity of the sentence to be imposed. The transcript discloses the following colloquy:
Because the court foreclosed the presentation of matters "relevant to the sentence," State v. Scott, 439 So.2d 219 (Fla.1983); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.720(b), the cause is remanded solely for resentencing. The remaining point lacks merit.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.
The quoted portion of the sentencing hearing set forth in the majority opinion clearly demonstrates that the defendant failed to avail himself of the opportunity to be heard on the question of the sentence. He wanted to dispute the probation violation and refused to take advantage of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tuthill v. State, 86-847
...Tuthill "was not afforded an opportunity to be heard on the question of the severity of the sentence to be imposed." Tuthill v. State, 478 So.2d 409, 409 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 484 So.2d 10 (Fla.1986). Although we affirmed the trial court's revocation of probation, we remanded t......
-
Pastor v. State, 85-2052
...the presentation of matters relevant to the sentence. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.720(b); State v. Scott, 439 So.2d 219 (Fla.1983); Tuthill v. State, 478 So.2d 409 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 484 So.2d 10 For the foregoing reasons, Pastor's conviction for drug trafficking is affirmed, and the sent......
-
Davis v. State, 93-2355
...mitigating circumstances of his prior conviction. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.720(b). See State v. Scott, 439 So.2d 219 (Fla.1983); Tuthill v. State, 478 So.2d 409 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 484 So.2d 10 (Fla.1986); Hargis, 451 So.2d 551. Accordingly, the case must be remanded for a new sentenc......
-
State v. Munson, 91-2452
...error. Mask v. State, 289 So.2d 385, 387 (Fla.1973); Hargis v. State, 451 So.2d 551, 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Tuthill v. State, 478 So.2d 409 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 484 So.2d 10 (Fla.1986); State v. Hohl, 431 So.2d 707, 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). As Judge Scheb pointed out in These a......