The state presented reports of two separate fingerprints found on CD cases in the victim’s burglarized car that matched the defendant’s fingerprints and the victim’s statement that the defendant did not have permission to enter his car. Finally, unlike the defendant in Seays, the defendant in this case had the opportunity to rebut the burglary charge if he chose to do so. We recognize that the opportunity to explain arrests where charges are unresolved and still pending may be illusory for a defendant who does not wish to forfeit his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. A defendant facing old or new charges may have no meaningful way to explain the circumstances of the arrests to the sentencing court without endangering his defense to those charges. For this reason, the def A 2010) (<HOLDING>); Gray v. State, 964 So.2d 884, 885 (Fla. 2d
holding that new evidence must be evidence that is not merely cumulative holding that the appropriate remedy for a public trial violation was a new suppression hearing not a new trial because the remedy should be appropriate to the violation holding that procedural violations merely affect the weight of the evidence holding that the trial court improperly relied on evidence of new violations in determining the appropriate adult sentence to be imposed for the original offenses since defendant denied committing the new violations he could not be penalized merely for being arrested and charged holding that the district court erred in finding violations that were not alleged specifically in the plaintiffs notice letter and no penalties could be imposed for those violations