From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pearson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Feb 2, 2011
51 So. 3d 1286 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

Opinion

No. 4D10-67.

February 2, 2011.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Robert E. Belanger, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 562007CF002638A 562007CF002644A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melanie Dale Surber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.


Appellant Eliot Lewis Pearson appeals an order revoking probation and sentencing him to concurrent sentences totaling fifteen years. We reverse because immediately after the evidentiary portion of the hearing, the trial court announced its ruling that the violations were supported by the evidence without allowing closing argument. When defense counsel requested that she be allowed to make a closing argument, the trial judge refused, stating that he could not "imagine anything that [defense counsel] would say that would change [the] ruling." We note that the most serious charge was the offense of felony battery and defendant had claimed self-defense. Although the court later heard argument on the sentence which was to be imposed, the failure to allow argument on the threshold issue of whether defendant violated his probation was error. See Estevez v. State, 705 So.2d 972, 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (citing Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 611, 105 S.Ct. 2254, 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985)).

Accordingly, we hold that the abrupt and perfunctory manner in which the trial court handled the latter part of this probation revocation proceeding was error and we reverse for a new hearing. See Holley v. State, 48 So.3d 916, 922 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (reversing where trial court's limit on cross-examination and argument from counsel on motion to suppress reflected "a consistent series of unnecessary restrictions on [the] defendant's right to confront, argue, and present his case"). On remand, we direct that this case be assigned to another trial judge.

Reversed and remanded.

GROSS, C.J., STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pearson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Feb 2, 2011
51 So. 3d 1286 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)
Case details for

Pearson v. State

Case Details

Full title:Eliot Lewis PEARSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Feb 2, 2011

Citations

51 So. 3d 1286 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

Citing Cases

Selman v. State

The failure to afford a defendant a closing argument in such an adversarial proceeding is reversible error.…

Fain v. State

Appellant was entitled to an opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether he violated his probation. See…