Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Bardwell v. State

Bardwell v. State

617 So. 2d 431, 1993 WL 130955
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 28, 1993·No. 92-2362·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

617 So.2d 431 (1993)

Tim BARDWELL, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 92-2362.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 28, 1993.

Kendall J. Phillips of Phillips & Gale, P.A., Fort Pierce, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Don M. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the conviction of appellant but reverse the sentence because of the trial court's failure to follow the mandatory provisions of section 775.084(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), which require the trial court to obtain a presentence investigation prior to sentencing a defendant as an habitual felony offender. While the defendant can knowingly waive the requirement of a P.S.I., see Likely v. State, 583 So.2d 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the record in this case does not reveal such a waiver.

*432 Reversed and remanded for resentencing.

ANSTEAD, HERSEY and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

Bardwell v. State, 617 So. 2d 431, 1993 WL 130955 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

617 So. 2d 431 (Bardwell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ortiz v. State
9 So. 3d 774 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Moore v. State
768 So. 2d 1140 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Barton v. State
706 So. 2d 399 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Burns v. State
682 So. 2d 675 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Harris v. State
679 So. 2d 1320 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)