de novo sentencing hearing in Florida

2020This Court has held that “[i]n both capital and noncapital cases, . . . resentencing is a new proceeding” and that “ ‘resentencing -8- entitles the defendant to a de novo sentencing hearing with the full array of due process rights.’ ” State v. Collins, 985 So. 2d 985, 989 (Fla. 2008) (quoting Trotter v. State, 825 So. 2d 362, 367-68 (Fla. 2002)); see also Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517, 526 (Fla. 2007) (Cantero, J., specially concurring) (explaining that without the empaneling of new juries, a resentencing court would be limited to the facts found by the original jury and the State would,

2020Of particular importance is the Florida Supreme Court’s specific cite to State v. Collins in which, in pertinent part, the court held: In noncapital cases, too, we have concluded that “resentencing entitles the defendant to a de novo sentencing hearing with the full array of due process rights.” Trotter v. State, 825 So. 2d 362, 367-68 (Fla. 2002); see also Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517, 525 (Fla. 2007) (Cantero, J., specially concurring) (“We have consistently held that resentencing proceedings must be a ‘clean slate,’ meaning that the defendant’s vacated sentence becomes a ‘nullity’ and

2001State v. Scott, 439 So.2d 219, 220 (Fla.1983); Baldwin v. State, 700 So.2d 95, 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that on resentencing, a defendant is entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing and may challenge his prior record even though the priors had not been previously challenged). "[W]hen a discrepancy concerning the scoresheet is brought to the sentencing court's attention, the court should resolve the discrepancy and correct the scoresheet to reflect the accurate numbers." Erickson v. State, 565 So.2d 328, 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

2001See also Baldwin v. State, 700 So.2d 95, 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)(holding that on re-sentencing, a defendant is entitled to receive a de novo sentencing hearing and can challenge his prior record even though the prior convictions had not been previously challenged).

2001Lawrence v. State, 785 So.2d 728 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), once the trial court determines that the defendant is entitled to re-sentencing under Heggs, the defendant is entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing and any discrepancy in scoring brought to the trial court’s attention should be resolved.

2001Lawrence v. State, 785 So.2d 728 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); June v. State, 784 So.2d 1257, 1259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). [2] Accordingly, the trial court had the authority at the de novo sentencing hearing to exercise its discretion to apply the multiplier.

2002See June v. State, 784 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (holding that when defendant receives a resentencing hearing pursuant to a Heggs challenge, he or she is entitled to receive a de novo sentencing hearing with the full array of due process rights).

2001In June v. State, 784 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), we held that when a defendant receives a re-sentencing hearing pursuant to a Heggs ’ challenge, he or she is entitled to receive a de novo sentencing hearing with the full array of due process rights.

2020This Court has held that “[i]n both capital and noncapital cases, . . . resentencing is a new proceeding” and that “ ‘resentencing -8- entitles the defendant to a de novo sentencing hearing with the full array of due process rights.’ ” State v. Collins, 985 So. 2d 985, 989 (Fla. 2008) (quoting Trotter v. State, 825 So. 2d 362, 367-68 (Fla. 2002)); see also Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517, 526 (Fla. 2007) (Cantero, J., specially concurring) (explaining that without the empaneling of new juries, a resentencing court would be limited to the facts found by the original jury and the State would,

2020Of particular importance is the Florida Supreme Court’s specific cite to State v. Collins in which, in pertinent part, the court held: In noncapital cases, too, we have concluded that “resentencing entitles the defendant to a de novo sentencing hearing with the full array of due process rights.” Trotter v. State, 825 So. 2d 362, 367-68 (Fla. 2002); see also Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517, 525 (Fla. 2007) (Cantero, J., specially concurring) (“We have consistently held that resentencing proceedings must be a ‘clean slate,’ meaning that the defendant’s vacated sentence becomes a ‘nullity’ and

2020This Court has held that “[i]n both capital and noncapital cases, . . . resentencing is a new proceeding” and that “ ‘resentencing -8- entitles the defendant to a de novo sentencing hearing with the full array of due process rights.’ ” State v. Collins, 985 So. 2d 985, 989 (Fla. 2008) (quoting Trotter v. State, 825 So. 2d 362, 367-68 (Fla. 2002)); see also Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517, 526 (Fla. 2007) (Cantero, J., specially concurring) (explaining that without the empaneling of new juries, a resentencing court would be limited to the facts found by the original jury and the State would,

2014See State v. Collins, 985 So.2d 985, 989 (Fla.2008) (“In both capital and noncapital cases, we have held that resentencing is a new proceeding [and] that ‘resentencing entitles the defendant to a de novo sentencing hearing with the full array of due process rights.’ ” (quoting Trotter v. State, 825 So.2d 362, 367-68 (Fla.2002))).

2001State v. Scott, 439 So.2d 219, 220 (Fla.1983); Baldwin v. State, 700 So.2d 95, 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that on resentencing, a defendant is entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing and may challenge his prior record even though the priors had not been previously challenged). "[W]hen a discrepancy concerning the scoresheet is brought to the sentencing court's attention, the court should resolve the discrepancy and correct the scoresheet to reflect the accurate numbers." Erickson v. State, 565 So.2d 328, 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

2001Since the robbery with a mask was resolved prior to the time of his Heggs resentencing, it was correctly included as part of his prior record at resentencing. *1259 Once the trial court determined that resentencing was appropriate, June was entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing with the full array of due process rights. [1] State v. Scott, 439 So.2d 219, 220 (Fla.1983); Baldwin v. State, 700 So.2d 95, 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that on resentencing, a defendant is entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing and may challenge his prior record even though the priors had not been previously c

2021Appellant further argues that the remedy for the illegal sentence in this case is a de novo sentencing hearing, as that was the remedy on remand in both Hernandez, 162 So. 3d at 131 and Leon v. State, 190 So. 3d 243, 244 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).

2021Appellant further argues that the remedy for the illegal sentence in this case is a de novo sentencing hearing, as that was the remedy on remand in both Hernandez and Leon v. State, 190 So. 3d 243, 244 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).

2017We agree with Appellant that, once the trial court determines that de novo resentencing is appropriate, the defendant is “entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing with the full array of due process rights.” Webb v. State, 805 So. 2d 856, 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (quoting St.

2002See Pelham v. State, 815 So.2d 733, 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Webb v. State, 805 So.2d 856, 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Duvalt v. State, 805 So.2d 834, 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Williams v. State, 801 So.2d 301, 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Diaz v. State, 790 So.2d 523, 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Smith v. State, 800 So.2d 752, 753 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); St.

2001Morris, 605 So.2d at 514 (footnote omitted).

1993See Morris v. State, 605 So.2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

2001State v. Scott, 439 So.2d 219, 220 (Fla.1983); Baldwin v. State, 700 So.2d 95, 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that on resentencing, a defendant is entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing and may challenge his prior record even though the priors had not been previously challenged). "[W]hen a discrepancy concerning the scoresheet is brought to the sentencing court's attention, the court should resolve the discrepancy and correct the scoresheet to reflect the accurate numbers." Erickson v. State, 565 So.2d 328, 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

2001Since the robbery with a mask was resolved prior to the time of his Heggs resentencing, it was correctly included as part of his prior record at resentencing. *1259 Once the trial court determined that resentencing was appropriate, June was entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing with the full array of due process rights. [1] State v. Scott, 439 So.2d 219, 220 (Fla.1983); Baldwin v. State, 700 So.2d 95, 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that on resentencing, a defendant is entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing and may challenge his prior record even though the priors had not been previously c

2024To qualify as fundamental error when the issue is not preserved, “the error ‘must be basic to the judicial decision under review and equivalent to a denial of due process.’” Hill, 246 So. 3d at 394 (quoting Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562, 575 (Fla. 2008)). 3 Appellant’s resentencing entitled him to a de novo sentencing hearing with the full array of due process rights.

2020Of particular importance is the Florida Supreme Court’s specific cite to State v. Collins in which, in pertinent part, the court held: In noncapital cases, too, we have concluded that “resentencing entitles the defendant to a de novo sentencing hearing with the full array of due process rights.” Trotter v. State, 825 So. 2d 362, 367-68 (Fla. 2002); see also Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517, 525 (Fla. 2007) (Cantero, J., specially concurring) (“We have consistently held that resentencing proceedings must be a ‘clean slate,’ meaning that the defendant’s vacated sentence becomes a ‘nullity’ and

2019See Dixon v. State, 41 So. 3d 990, 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

2007See Ross v. State, 901 So.2d 252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); see also Tumblin v. State, 965 So.2d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Granatino v. State, 965 So.2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

2007During a de novo sentencing hearing, "both sides are free to argue or present evidence on whatever factors the law permits a trial court to consider before imposing sentence." Gisi v. State, 948 So.2d 816 , 819 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 952 So.2d 1189 (Fla.2007); see also Street v. State, 899 So.2d 440, 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

2007As I have previously noted in Lloyd v. State, 844 So.2d 713, 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (Altenbernd, J., concurring), I disagree that anything other than a de novo sentencing hearing is required on remand.

2007See Ross v. State, 901 So.2d 252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); see also Tumblin v. State, 965 So.2d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Granatino v. State, 965 So.2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

2005See Aponte v. State, 810 So.2d 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Altman v. State, 756 So.2d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

2002See Pelham v. State, 815 So.2d 733, 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Webb v. State, 805 So.2d 856, 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Duvalt v. State, 805 So.2d 834, 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Williams v. State, 801 So.2d 301, 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Diaz v. State, 790 So.2d 523, 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Smith v. State, 800 So.2d 752, 753 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); St.