Durant v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Durant v. State

609 So. 2d 774, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12590, 1992 WL 371543

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Durant v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5662 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 18, 1992·No. No. 91-03057·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment pursuant to section 775.084(4)(b)(1), Florida Statutes (1989). In Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 267 (Fla.1992), the supreme court held that sentencing under the above statute was permissive, not mandatory. Because it is probable that the trial judge thought that a life sentence was mandatory, we reverse the séntence and remand for reconsideration in light of Burdick. Otherwise, affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment pursuant to section 775.084(4)(b)(1), Florida Statutes (1989). In Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 267 (Fla.1992), the supreme court held that sentencing under the above statute was permissive, not mandatory. Because it is probable that the trial judge thought that a life sentence was mandatory, we reverse the séntence and remand for reconsideration in light of Burdick. Otherwise, affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.

Durant v. State, 609 So. 2d 774, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12590, 1992 WL 371543 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

609 So. 2d 774 (Durant v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related