Cato v. State
611 So. 2d 22, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13581, 1992 WL 382642
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 22, 1992·No. No. 91-3893·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
The appellant challenges his habitual offender sentence, arguing that the court erred in failing to make the requisite findings under section 775.084, Florida Statutes. Because the appellant’s counsel acknowledged at the sentencing hearing that the appellant qualified for a habitual offender sentence, the necessity of specific findings under the statute was waived. See Robinson v. State, 605 So.2d 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The challenged sentence is therefore affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cato v. State, 611 So. 2d 22, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13581, 1992 WL 382642 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).
611 So. 2d 22 (Cato v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Moffett v. State
613 So. 2d 147 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)