Skip to main content

Rich v. State

Citations

  • 814 So. 2d 1207
  • 2002 WL 662706

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that at resentenc-ing, the State must present evidence on an enhanced sentencing factor despite having done so at the prior sentencing hearing
  • holding that at a resentencing, the State must again prove the basis for an enhanced sentence even though such evidence was produced at the original sentencing
  • holding that the state was required to introduce evidence at the resentencing hearing to prove that the defendant qualifies for an enhanced sentence
  • holding that because resentencing following reversal is a new proceeding, the State must introduce evidence that the defendant qualifies for enhanced sentencing, even though such evidence was introduced in the previous sentencing hearing
  • holding that because resentencing following reversal is a new proceeding, the State must introduce evidence that the defendant qualifies for enhanced sentencing, even though such evidence was introduced in the previous sentencing hearing
  • holding that, on resentencing following reversal, the State was required to introduce evidence to prove the defendant qualified for an enhanced sentence and could not only rely upon evidence introduced at a prior sentencing hearing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Stevenson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.