Bouie v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bouie v. State

570 So. 2d 1148, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9463, 1990 WL 205446

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 14, 1990

DocketNo. 89-3277

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 570 So. 2d 1148 (Bouie 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

Bouie v. State, 570 So. 2d 1148, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9463, 1990 WL 205446 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm on both issues raised by appellant. As to the constitutional attack upon Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), we affirm on the authority of Smith v. State, 567 So.2d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Arnold v. State, 566 So.2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Roberts v. State, 559 So.2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA), dismissed, 564 So.2d 488 (Fla.1990); King v. State, 557 So.2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 564 So.2d 1086 (Fla.1990). Cf. Barber v. State, 564 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

As to the appellant’s assertion that the court erred in sentencing the appellant as an habitual felony offender “without making the requisite findings,” we affirm on the authority of Robinson v. State, 551 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). We also reject appellant’s notice argument.

AFFIRMED.

SMITH, NIMMONS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm on both issues raised by appellant. As to the constitutional attack upon Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), we affirm on the authority of Smith v. State, 567 So.2d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Arnold v. State, 566 So.2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Roberts v. State, 559 So.2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA), dismissed, 564 So.2d 488 (Fla.1990); King v. State, 557 So.2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 564 So.2d 1086 (Fla.1990). Cf. Barber v. State, 564 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

As to the appellant’s assertion that the court erred in sentencing the appellant as an habitual felony offender “without making the requisite findings,” we affirm on the authority of Robinson v. State, 551 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). We also reject appellant’s notice argument.

AFFIRMED.

SMITH, NIMMONS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

570 So. 2d 1148, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9463, 1990 WL 205446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bouie-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack