Dependency Law Finder

Florida's dependency statutes, court rules and DCF operating procedures, with the appellate opinions that apply them

data.robertlathamesq.org · All tools

Before you use this site

This site aggregates legal authorities from a variety of public sources. It is AI and human reviewed. Text processing errors can occur. Always check the information here against the official linked source.

This site is publicly available. Use for general research only. Do not submit confidential or identifiable case information.

I don't agree: show the official sources

Henschke v. State556 So. 2d 409 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989) · DCA89-88

Court
District Court of Appeal
Decided
1989-10-11
On CourtListener
PER CURIAM.

Appellant asserts error in the trial court’s imposition of adult sanctions without complying with the requirements of Section 39.111(7)(d), Florida Statutes. The state candidly concedes error1 but says that it is not necessary to return the defendant to the trial court for resentencing. We disagree. The defendant is entitled to be present at resentencing. See Pickerill v. State, 493 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).

Accordingly, we reverse the sentence and remand with directions to resentence, giving due consideration to the requirements of Section 39.111(7). The defendant shall have the right to be present and be heard at the resentencing.

ERVIN, NIMMONS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

. The state's concession is well grounded. See State v. Rhoden, 448 So.2d 1013 (Fla.1984).

Opinion text: CourtListener, Free Law Project. Not an official reporter; check the court's version before citing.