Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

306 So. 2d 142

Docket No. 74-543.

Culbertson v. State

Michael CULBERTSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 15, 1975.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1975-01-15

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“(b) Entertain submissions and evidence by the parties which are relevant to the sentence.”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including State v. Hohl, 348 So. 2d 66 - Trudeau v. State

Relies on Jones v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1975-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 2018

11 state decisions

4019751980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*143 James A. Gardner, Public Defender, Sarasota, and Durand J. Adams, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

¶2Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

¶3SCHEB, Judge.

¶4The appellant, Michael J. Culbertson, was charged with assault with intent to commit rape. A jury trial resulted in a verdict of guilty of the lesser included offense of assault and battery whereupon the trial judge immediately sentenced the appellant to serve one year in the county jail with credit for time previously served while awaiting trial.

¶5The appellant asserts two points on appeal:

1. The trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury concerning impeachment of witnesses; and
2. The trial court erred in denying the appellant an opportunity to present evidence in mitigation prior to sentence.

¶6Since the testimony of the prosecutrix revealed some conflicts it would have been appropriate for the court to have instructed the jury as requested; however, viewing the instructions as a whole and noting that there was sufficient evidence corroborating the prosecutrix's testimony as related to the offense of assault and battery we find that error, if any, in failing to give the requested instruction was harmless.

¶7Notwithstanding a timely request by appellant's counsel for an opportunity to present matters in mitigation such request was denied by the trial court. Rule 3.720(b) RCrP makes it mandatory for the court to "entertain submissions and evidence by the parties which are relevant to the sentence." The language of the rule is mandatory. Mask v. State, Fla. 1973, 289 So.2d 385.

¶8This case is remanded for resentencing of the appellant after first affording the appellant an opportunity to offer matters in mitigation as mandated by Rule 3.720(b) RCrP; otherwise the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

¶9HOBSON, A.C.J., and GRIMES, J., concur.

/306/so2d/142 · .json · Public domain