incarceration in the Collier County Jail to be followed by a two-year term of probation. The trial court rejected the State’s recommendation. The trial court stated, “You still don’t have any remorse for what you did. When I asked you if you had anything to say, you didn’t say I am sorry. You didn’t say anything about the offense. I asked you twice. ... You still don’t show any remorse.” (Emphasis added.) After careful review of the court’s comments prior to imposing Mr. Pehlke’s sentence, we conclude that the trial court committed fundamental error by considering Mr. Pehlke’s failure to show remorse for his actions. See Smith v. State, 62 So.3d 698, 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Brown v. State, 27 So.3d 181, 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Bracero v. State, 10 So.3d 664, 665-66 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (<HOLDING>). The State concedes that it was fundamental
holding that because restitution hearings are a part of sentencing and have nothing to do with a defendants guilt or innocence the rules of evidence do not apply holding the error harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt holding that even the admission of a coerced confession may be harmless error and noting that  the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendants guilt or innocence  holding that it was fundamental error for a sentencing court to consider a criminal defendants protestations of innocence because due process guarantees an individual the right to maintain innocence even when faced with evidence of overwhelming guilt