Cato v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cato v. State

611 So. 2d 22, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13581, 1992 WL 382642

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 22, 1992

DocketNo. 91-3893

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 611 So. 2d 22 (Cato 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

Cato v. State, 611 So. 2d 22, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13581, 1992 WL 382642 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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.

SMITH, ALLEN and WOLF, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

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.

SMITH, ALLEN and WOLF, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

611 So. 2d 22, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13581, 1992 WL 382642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cato-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack