Delguidice v. State

554 So. 2d 35, 1990 WL 126
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 4, 1990
Docket88-2241
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 554 So. 2d 35 (Delguidice 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
Delguidice v. State, 554 So. 2d 35, 1990 WL 126 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

554 So.2d 35 (1990)

Dean DELGUIDICE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 88-2241.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

January 4, 1990.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Tanja Ostapoff, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sylvia H. Alonso, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

HERSEY, Chief Judge.

We affirm appellant's convictions but reverse the sentence and imposition of costs.

Appellant was sentenced as an habitual offender to ten years imprisonment to be followed by two years probation. The statutory maximum, as conceded by the state, was ten years and we therefore strike the added probationary period. McCray v. State, 517 So.2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The prior conviction relied upon to support the finding of habitual offender status was on appeal to this court, thus not final, at the time of sentencing. Reliance on it therefore constitutes reversible error. See State v. Villafane, 444 So.2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We reject appellant's contention that the trial court must reduce his findings in support of habitual offender status to writing. Parker v. State, 546 So.2d 727 (Fla. 1989). However, for the reasons indicated, we reverse and remand for resentencing, at which time as part of the sentencing process the trial court may either enter an order striking costs or conduct a hearing and impose costs, which we strike in the present appeal on the authority of Mays v. State, 519 So.2d 618 *36 (Fla. 1988) and a multitude of similar precedents.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

LETTS and STONE, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Kiley v. State
936 So. 2d 674 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
State v. Finelli
744 So. 2d 1053 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Delguidice v. Singletary
84 F.3d 1359 (Eleventh Circuit, 1996)
Peterson v. State
651 So. 2d 781 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Breeze v. State
641 So. 2d 450 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Anderson v. State
632 So. 2d 132 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Baxter v. State
617 So. 2d 338 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Johnson v. State
613 So. 2d 143 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
554 So. 2d 35, 1990 WL 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delguidice-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.