Alphonse v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Alphonse v. State

593 So. 2d 612, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1263, 1992 WL 25937

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 14, 1992

DocketNo. 91-00139

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 593 So. 2d 612 (Alphonse v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alphonse v. State, 593 So. 2d 612, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1263, 1992 WL 25937 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

CASE, JAMES R., Associate Judge.

The defendant challenges her conviction and sentence for possession of a controlled substance on two grounds. We find merit to only one of her contentions.

The defendant argues the court erred in enhancing her sentence as a habitual offender without including either in a written order or in oral statements in the record an acknowledgment of the receipt of the necessary documentation required by section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989). We agree and remand for the trial court to either make the requisite findings based on proper evidentiary support, or, if the record does not support such, vacate the habitual offender sentence and resentence the defendant according to the guidelines. See Roberts v. State, 559 So.2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

DANAHY, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CASE, JAMES R., Associate Judge.

The defendant challenges her conviction and sentence for possession of a controlled substance on two grounds. We find merit to only one of her contentions.

The defendant argues the court erred in enhancing her sentence as a habitual offender without including either in a written order or in oral statements in the record an acknowledgment of the receipt of the necessary documentation required by section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989). We agree and remand for the trial court to either make the requisite findings based on proper evidentiary support, or, if the record does not support such, vacate the habitual offender sentence and resentence the defendant according to the guidelines. See Roberts v. State, 559 So.2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

DANAHY, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

593 So. 2d 612, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1263, 1992 WL 25937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alphonse-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack