Bamberg v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bamberg v. State

599 So. 2d 769, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6196, 1992 WL 119856

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 5, 1992

DocketNo. 91-03267

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 599 So. 2d 769 (Bamberg 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

Bamberg v. State, 599 So. 2d 769, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6196, 1992 WL 119856 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Bamberg pled guilty to various charges including burglary and grand theft. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to a prison term for the burglary, but on the grand theft charge he was given 10 years probation only.

Appellant contends that the 10 years probation was improper in light of the habitual offender finding, relying on the concurring opinion in Steiner v. State, 591 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). However, this court has since held in an en banc opinion that the trial court may impose probation even when the court has made a finding that the defendant is a habitual offender. King v. State, 597 So.2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). We note that the Fifth District Court of Appeal has recently held to the contrary in State v. Kendrick, 596 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).

Affirmed.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and LEHAN and FRANK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Bamberg pled guilty to various charges including burglary and grand theft. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to a prison term for the burglary, but on the grand theft charge he was given 10 years probation only.

Appellant contends that the 10 years probation was improper in light of the habitual offender finding, relying on the concurring opinion in Steiner v. State, 591 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). However, this court has since held in an en banc opinion that the trial court may impose probation even when the court has made a finding that the defendant is a habitual offender. King v. State, 597 So.2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). We note that the Fifth District Court of Appeal has recently held to the contrary in State v. Kendrick, 596 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).

Affirmed.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and LEHAN and FRANK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

599 So. 2d 769, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6196, 1992 WL 119856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bamberg-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack