rescheduled hearing in Florida

2001This court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Altimeaux did or did not receive notice, stating: “If the referee determines he did not get notice of the rescheduled hearing, the case must be returned to the appeals referee so that Al-timeaux can present his side of the case.” Altimeaux v. Ocean Construction, Inc., 752 So.2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (citing Koppelman v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 626 So.2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)).

2000See Koppelman, 626 So.2d at 323 .

2024See Traughber v. Traughber, 941 So. 2d 388 , 389– 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (noting that because a temporary injunction was in place and the respondent was not given adequate notice of a permanent injunction hearing, the trial court should have prevented any due process issues by extending the temporary injunction and continuing the final hearing).

2011The court based the sentence on “the fact that [Appellant] failed to appear for sentencing.” The only evidence the court heard regarding Appellant’s January arrest was a statement from the State, indicating it had contacted the nearby county’s jail “and received information that on January the 9th, [Appellant] was booked into the [county jail] and was charged with burglary and grand theft.” Analysis “Where timely appearance for sentencing is made a condition of a plea agreement, a non-willful failure to appear will not vitiate the agreement and permit the trial court to impose some greater sen

1995This case is similar to Holmes v. City of West Palm Beach, 627 So.2d 52, 53-54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) in which the appellant, an applicant for unemployment compensation, alleged that he did not receive notice of hearing and notice of determination.