Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Faison v. State

Faison v. State

608 So. 2d 591, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12095, 1992 WL 353205
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 2, 1992
DocketNo. 91-3169
StatusPublished

This text of 608 So. 2d 591 (Faison 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
Faison v. State, 608 So. 2d 591, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12095, 1992 WL 353205 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinions

DOWNEY, Judge.

This is a timely appeal from a judgment adjudicating appellant Faison guilty of sale and delivery of a controlled substance (cocaine) and sentencing him as an habitual felony offender to seven years’ imprisonment.

Appellant presents two appellate points: 1) error was committed by the trial court in refusing to allow appellant to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere, and 2) the trial court erred in failing to make the specific findings required by section 775.084(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), when sentencing appellant as an habitual offender.

We find no merit in appellant’s contentions vis-a-vis Point I. However, as regards Point II, the law is clear that section 775.084(l)(a) requires the court to make specific findings in sentencing a defendant as an habitual offender. As this court said in Wilson v. State, 605 So.2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992):

However, we rely on the authority of Anderson v. State, 592 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); see also Rolle v. State, 586 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) and Van Bryant v. State, [602 So.2d 582] 17 F.L.W. D1343 (Fla. 4th DCA May 27, 1992), to hold that a trial court must specifically make the findings required by section 775.084(l)(a) before sentencing a defendant as a habitual offender even if the defendant concedes the prior convictions and does not inform the court that they were pardoned or set aside.

Id. at 142.

Accordingly, we reverse the sentence imposed and remand the cause for resentenc-ing, at which time the trial court may again sentence appellant as an habitual offender provided it makes findings, supported by evidence, as required by section 775.-084(l)(a). Banes v. State, 597 So.2d 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Meehan v. State, 526 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). In all other respects the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

GUNTHER, J., concurs. STONE, J., concurs specially, with opinion.

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

Related

Eutsey v. State
383 So. 2d 219 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1980)
Meehan v. State
526 So. 2d 1083 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Van Bryant v. State
602 So. 2d 582 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Wilson v. State
605 So. 2d 141 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Banes v. State
597 So. 2d 975 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Anderson v. State
592 So. 2d 1119 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Baxter v. State
599 So. 2d 721 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Rolle v. State
586 So. 2d 1293 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
608 So. 2d 591, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12095, 1992 WL 353205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faison-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.