Mullin v. State
The Fourth DCA rejected Mullin's claim that sentencing her in absentia was fundamental error, finding she failed to address voluntariness of her absence. However, the court held that sentencing her without any counsel present when the case was recalled constituted a complete denial of counsel, which is fundamental error rather than mere harmless-error 'temporary absence.' The court affirmed the convictions but reversed the sentences and remanded for resentencing before a different judge.
Key facts
- Defendant Mullin was convicted in trial court and the case was recalled for sentencing, but neither Mullin nor her attorney was present when sentencing proceeded.
- The trial court sentenced Mullin to maximum consecutive sentences while she and her counsel were absent from the courtroom.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion reinforces the distinction courts must draw between a 'complete denial' of counsel at sentencing (fundamental error, reversible without harmless-error analysis) and a mere 'temporary absence' of counsel… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.