From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
May 6, 2010
35 So. 3d 69 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

Summary

explaining that a resentencing after a successful rule 3.800 motion is a de novo proceeding

Summary of this case from Jordan v. State

Opinion

No. 1D08-0526.

May 6, 2010.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County. James Roy Bean, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Franklin L. Jones, pro se, Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Bryan Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.


In this Anders case, the appellant challenges the sentence imposed after his rule 3.800(a) motion was granted in part and he was resentenced. We reverse and remand.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

The record reveals that when the trial court resentenced the appellant he was not represented by counsel. A resentencing is a de novo proceeding to which "the full panoply of due process considerations attaches." Gonzalez v. State, 838 So.2d 1242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). As such, the defendant was entitled to representation of counsel at this critical stage of the proceedings. Id; Sandoval v. State, 884 So.2d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Here, there is no waiver of counsel in the record, and therefore, the trial court erred when it failed to appoint counsel for the re-sentencing hearing. Gonzalez, 838 So.2d at 1243. Such an error is never harmless and need not be preserved. Id. The state concedes that the appellant is entitled to be resentenced.

When a defendant makes clear his desire to represent himself at a critical stage, the trial court is obligated to conduct a Faretta inquiry to determine if a defendant is knowingly and intelligently waiving his right to counsel and is "aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation." Faretta v. California, All U.S. 806, 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.111(d)(2). No such hearing was held.

Accordingly, we vacate the appellant's sentence and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

WOLF, BENTON, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Jones v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
May 6, 2010
35 So. 3d 69 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

explaining that a resentencing after a successful rule 3.800 motion is a de novo proceeding

Summary of this case from Jordan v. State
Case details for

Jones v. State

Case Details

Full title:Franklin L. JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: May 6, 2010

Citations

35 So. 3d 69 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

Citing Cases

Slocum v. State

Cooper v. State, 667 So. 2d 932, 933 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We have held that "resentencing [in the original…

Slocum v. State

Cooper v. State, 667 So.2d 932, 933 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We have held that “resentencing [in the original…