Case Name: Robert Gunter HENSCHKE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-10-11
Citations: 556 So. 2d 409
Docket Number: No. 89-88
Parties: Robert Gunter HENSCHKE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: ERVIN, NIMMONS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 556
Pages: 409–410

Head Matter:
Robert Gunter HENSCHKE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 89-88.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Oct. 11, 1989.
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, Carl S. MeGinnes, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Richard E. Doran, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant asserts error in the trial court's imposition of adult sanctions without complying with the requirements of Section 39.111(7)(d), Florida Statutes. The state candidly concedes error but says that it is not necessary to return the defendant to the trial court for resentencing. We disagree. The defendant is entitled to be present at resentencing. See Pickerill v. State, 493 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
Accordingly, we reverse the sentence and remand with directions to resentence, giving due consideration to the requirements of Section 39.111(7). The defendant shall have the right to be present and be heard at the resentencing.
ERVIN, NIMMONS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
. The state's concession is well grounded. See State v. Rhoden, 448 So.2d 1013 (Fla.1984).