Binstead v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Binstead v. State

565 So. 2d 419, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6255, 1990 WL 118950

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 17, 1990

DocketNo. 88-02941

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 565 So. 2d 419 (Binstead 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

Binstead v. State, 565 So. 2d 419, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6255, 1990 WL 118950 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant raises two issues in this appeal from his convictions and sentence for escape and possession of contraband while in a state correctional facility. We find merit in only one. We affirm his convictions but reverse the sentence.

The appellant correctly contends that the trial court failed to make the requisite findings of fact in order to double the statutory máximums for sentencing for the crimes he committed. The appellant’s crimes were committed under the version of the habitual offender statute in effect on February 4, 1988, the date of his offenses. § 775.084, Fla.Stat. (1987). We vacate the sentence imposed and remand the case to the trial court for resentencing following the correct procedures to determine whether the appellant’s record complies with the qualifications of the statute and whether this enhanced sentencing is necessary for the protection of the public. Smith v. State, 561 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant raises two issues in this appeal from his convictions and sentence for escape and possession of contraband while in a state correctional facility. We find merit in only one. We affirm his convictions but reverse the sentence.

The appellant correctly contends that the trial court failed to make the requisite findings of fact in order to double the statutory máximums for sentencing for the crimes he committed. The appellant’s crimes were committed under the version of the habitual offender statute in effect on February 4, 1988, the date of his offenses. § 775.084, Fla.Stat. (1987). We vacate the sentence imposed and remand the case to the trial court for resentencing following the correct procedures to determine whether the appellant’s record complies with the qualifications of the statute and whether this enhanced sentencing is necessary for the protection of the public. Smith v. State, 561 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

565 So. 2d 419, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6255, 1990 WL 118950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/binstead-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack