Fountain v. State

626 So. 2d 1119, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11931, 1993 WL 492553
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 1, 1993·No. No. 92-3420·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges an order denying her motion for post-conviction relief in which she claimed that her sentence was unlawful because she did not receive notice of the state’s intent to habitualize prior to her change of plea. We reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct a hearing as to whether the dual requirements of Ashley v. State, 614 So.2d 486 (Fla.1993), were complied with pri- or to appellant’s change of plea. If they were not, then appellant’s habitual offender [1120]*1120sentence is illegal and appellant must be sentenced within the guidelines.

WARNER, FARMER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

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

Fountain v. State, 626 So. 2d 1119, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11931, 1993 WL 492553 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

626 So. 2d 1119 (Fountain v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pitts v. State
679 So. 2d 346 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Wilson v. State
645 So. 2d 1042 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Souza v. State
639 So. 2d 676 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)