striking that portion of the sentence that improperly retained jurisdiction and affirming all else
How later courts described this case
- striking that portion of the sentence that improperly retained jurisdiction and affirming all else
- holding that any error in denying a defendant her or his right to be present at a critical stage or any proceeding is fundamental error, except in resentencing cases where only the “ministerial act” of sentence correction is required
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Orta v. State, 919 So.2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)(holding that any error in denying a defendant her or his right to be present at a critical stage or any proceeding is fundamental error, except in resentencing cases where only the “ministerial act” of sentence correction is required); Cook v. State, 481 So.2d 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)(striking that portion *1178 of the sentence that improperly retained jurisdiction and affirming all else).