Dombrowski v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dombrowski v. State

695 So. 2d 470, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6243, 1997 WL 309973

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 11, 1997

DocketNo. 96-1212

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 695 So. 2d 470 (Dombrowski 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

Dombrowski v. State, 695 So. 2d 470, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6243, 1997 WL 309973 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence as an habitual felony offender. We reject his claim that the trial court’s imposition of the maximum habitual offender term was the result of judicial vindictiveness for appellant’s failure to accept a prior plea bargain. From our reading of the transcript, no plea bargain was in fact offered. However, even if it was, we find no judicial vindictiveness. Batista v. State, 685 So.2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); see also Frazier v. State, 467 So.2d 447, 450-51 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. dismissed, 475 So.2d 694 (Fla.1985).

With respect to appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in sentencing appellant as an habitual offender on the evidence presented by the state, we agree with the state that the appellant did not properly preserve this issue by objecting to the introduction of this evidence on the grounds asserted on appeal.

AFFIRMED.

WARNER, KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence as an habitual felony offender. We reject his claim that the trial court’s imposition of the maximum habitual offender term was the result of judicial vindictiveness for appellant’s failure to accept a prior plea bargain. From our reading of the transcript, no plea bargain was in fact offered. However, even if it was, we find no judicial vindictiveness. Batista v. State, 685 So.2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); see also Frazier v. State, 467 So.2d 447, 450-51 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. dismissed, 475 So.2d 694 (Fla.1985).

With respect to appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in sentencing appellant as an habitual offender on the evidence presented by the state, we agree with the state that the appellant did not properly preserve this issue by objecting to the introduction of this evidence on the grounds asserted on appeal.

AFFIRMED.

WARNER, KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

695 So. 2d 470, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6243, 1997 WL 309973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dombrowski-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack