Case Name: Roderick CHILDERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2003-12-10
Citations: 861 So. 2d 1194
Docket Number: No. 2D03-863
Parties: Roderick CHILDERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: SALCINES and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 861
Pages: 1194–1195

Head Matter:
Roderick CHILDERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 2D03-863.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Dec. 10, 2003.
John D. Middleton and R. Mitchell Prugh of Middleton & Prugh, P.A., Mel-rose, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ronald Napolitano, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appel-lee.

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