Colligan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Colligan v. State

701 So. 2d 910, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13372, 1997 WL 740691

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 3, 1997

DocketNo. 96-3728

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 701 So. 2d 910 (Colligan 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

Colligan v. State, 701 So. 2d 910, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13372, 1997 WL 740691 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions for second degree murder with a firearm and aggravated assault with a firearm. We also affirm the sentences imposed for each of these offenses. Appellant cannot challenge the trial court’s failure to make specific findings as required by the habitual offender statute, section 775.084(3), Florida Statutes (1993), for the first time on appeal. The state correctly argues that this issue was not properly preserved for appeal because Colligan failed to object to the pronouncement of habitual offender status at the sentencing hearing or by motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Fla. R.App. P. 9.1400(d); § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996). See Pryor v. State, 1997 WL 667605, — So.2d - (Fla. 3d DCA Oct.29, 1997); Callins v. State, 698 So.2d 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

AFFIRMED.

GLICKSTEIN, DELL and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions for second degree murder with a firearm and aggravated assault with a firearm. We also affirm the sentences imposed for each of these offenses. Appellant cannot challenge the trial court’s failure to make specific findings as required by the habitual offender statute, section 775.084(3), Florida Statutes (1993), for the first time on appeal. The state correctly argues that this issue was not properly preserved for appeal because Colligan failed to object to the pronouncement of habitual offender status at the sentencing hearing or by motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Fla. R.App. P. 9.1400(d); § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996). See Pryor v. State, 1997 WL 667605, — So.2d - (Fla. 3d DCA Oct.29, 1997); Callins v. State, 698 So.2d 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

AFFIRMED.

GLICKSTEIN, DELL and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

701 So. 2d 910, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13372, 1997 WL 740691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colligan-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack