CHILDERS v. STATE (2003)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Second District.

Roderick CHILDERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D03-863.

Decided: December 10, 2003

John D. Middleton and R. Mitchell Prugh of Middleton & Prugh, P.A., Melrose, for Appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ronald Napolitano, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

Roderick Childers seeks review of the thirty-year habitual violent felony offender sentence which was imposed pursuant to a resentencing under State v. Thompson, 750 So.2d 643 (Fla.1999).¹ Childers argues that the trial court erred when it refused to consider mitigation evidence and indicated that it would not substitute its judgment for the prior sentencing court on remand. When a defendant is resentenced under Thompson, the resentencing shall be conducted de novo, and the court is required to consider mitigation evidence. Webb v. State, 805 So.2d 856, 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Thus, we reverse and remand for the court to conduct a de novo sentencing hearing in this case.

Reversed and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1. In Thompson, the Florida Supreme Court held that chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, which created the statute under which Childers was originally sentenced, was unconstitutional. State v. Thompson, 750 So.2d 643, 646 (Fla.1999).

STRINGER, Judge.

SALCINES and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network