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

Brown v. State

457 So. 2d 1079, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1864, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14927
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 30, 1984·No. No. 83-742·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

SHARP, Judge.

We grant Brown’s motion for rehearing in this case in view of State v. Rhoden, 448 So.2d 1013 (Fla.1984), and Weston v. State, [1080]*1080452 So.2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), and vacate our per curiam affirmance, 456 So.2d 1194 (Fla.App.1984). Brown argues the trial court erred in sentencing him as a habitual offender because it failed to make a finding that an enhanced sentence is necessary to protect the public, as is required by section 775.084(8), Fla.Stat. (1983).1 No contemporaneous objection was made by defense counsel.

In Rhoden, the trial court failed to comply with the provisions of section 39.111(6), Florida Statutes (1981), in sentencing a juvenile defendant as an adult. The Florida Supreme Court held that a contemporaneous objection was not necessary. The language of section 39.111(6) is replete with mandatory language, similar to section 775.084(3). We cannot logically distinguish the two kinds of sentencing errors. Accordingly, we vacate Brown’s sentence and remand this ease for resentencing.

SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED.

COBB, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.

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

Brown v. State, 457 So. 2d 1079, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1864, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14927 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

457 So. 2d 1079 (Brown v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Neeley v. State
498 So. 2d 690 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Brown v. State
481 So. 2d 1271 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Pope v. State
475 So. 2d 1021 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)