Childers v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT RODERICK CHILDERS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2D03-863 Opinion filed December 10, 2003. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Richard A. Luce, Judge. 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. STRINGER, Judge. 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. SALCINES and WALLACE, JJ., Concur. 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). -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
