Case Name: Harold TUTHILL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-11-05
Citations: 478 So. 2d 409
Docket Number: No. 85-82
Parties: Harold TUTHILL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 478
Pages: 409–410

Head Matter:
Harold TUTHILL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 85-82.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 5, 1985.
Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash, Block & England and Kevin Ernas and Theodore Klein, Miami, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Richard E. Doran, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.

Opinion:
BASKIN, Judge.
The record reveals that appellant Tuthill was not afforded an opportunity to be heard on the question of the severity of the sentence to be imposed. The transcript discloses the following colloquy:
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Tuthill, is there anything you care to say before I impose sentence? Anything you want to say before I sentence you?
THE DEFENDANT: On probation?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. DIEGUEZ: He didn't violate probation, Your Honor.
THE COURT: As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Dieguez, I am shocked. I am outraged. These youngsters, you have scarred them for the rest of their lives, Mr. Tuthill. I put you on proba tion. You violated probation. I find you guilty. I adjudicate you guilty and I am sentencing you to 15 years in the State Penitentiary.
THE DEFENDANT: You asked me if I could say something and I haven't, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
THE DEFENDANT: I couldn't possibly have violated probation.
THE COURT: I have heard that. The only thing I want to know, is there any reason why I shouldn't give you the maximum sentence which I have just done? I don't want to hear your arguments. That's for an Appellate Court. When they review the testimony, they will determine whether or not this Court is in error. I have heard testimony that offended me, that shocked my conscience. As far as I am concerned, you're a chicken hawk. You prey on little kids and you got caught and you don't deserve to be on the street.
Because the court foreclosed the presentation of matters "relevant to the sentence," State v. Scott, 439 So.2d 219 (Fla.1983); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.720(b), the cause is remanded solely for resentencing. The remaining point lacks merit.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.