Taylor v. StateTaylor v. State
CONFESSION OF ERROR
PER CURIAM.
As pertinent to this appeal, William Lee Taylor, defendant, was convicted of kidnaping
Upon remand the trial court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment without appointing counsel to represent him at sentencing and without the defendant present. This was error. In Griffin v. State, 517 So.2d 669 (Fla.1987), the Supreme Court of Florida established the following requirements where the defendant‘s original sentence is vacated and the defendant is to be re-sentenced.
By re-sentencing we mean a full sentencing proceeding which necessarily includes the presence of the defendant and his or her attorney. The pronouncement of sentence upon a criminal defendant is a critical state of the proceedings to which all due process guarantees attach whether the sentence is the immediate result of adjudication of guilt or, as here, the sentence is the result of an order directing the trial court to resentence the defendant. (citations omitted). The presence of the defendant is as necessary at re-sentencing as it was at the time of the original sentence so that the defendant has the opportunity to submit evidence relevant to the sentence if warranted unless otherwise ordered by this Court.
Id. at 670. The State concedes that Griffin requires that the sentence imposed by the trial court be reversed and that the matter be remanded for re-sentencing.
The life sentence imposed upon the defendant is accordingly vacated. This case is remanded to the trial court for re-sentencing. The lower court will appoint counsel to represent the defendant and ensure the defendant‘s presence at sentencing.
Reversed and remanded.