DuBose v. State
This text of 585 So. 2d 1198 (DuBose 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.
Opinion
Varick F. DuBOSE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Laura Rush, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Varick F. DuBose has appealed his sentencing as an habitual felony offender. We affirm, but as conceded by the state, must remand for correction of the written sentencing order, on which the trial judge erroneously marked the habitual offender section for DuBose's misdemeanor convictions. Upon remand, the sentencing order for Counts II, III and V must be corrected to reflect that the special sentencing provision for habitual offender status does not apply to these misdemeanor offenses. See Peterson v. State, 576 So.2d 1385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
JOANOS, C.J., and SMITH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
585 So. 2d 1198, 1991 WL 192024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dubose-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.