Grimmage v. State

575 So. 2d 233, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 675, 1991 WL 9369
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 1, 1991
DocketNo. 89-02315
StatusPublished

This text of 575 So. 2d 233 (Grimmage 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
Grimmage v. State, 575 So. 2d 233, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 675, 1991 WL 9369 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the defendant’s convictions. We also affirm his sentences in all cases except for circuit court case numbers 87-76 and 87-77. In those two eases, which occurred prior to the 1988 amendment to the habitual offender statute, the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant as an habitual offender without first finding that an enhanced sentence was necessary to protect the public. See Smith v. State, 561 So.2d 1281 (Fla.2d DCA 1990). On remand, the trial court may again impose habitual offender sentences if the proper findings are made.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LEHAN and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Smith v. State
561 So. 2d 1281 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
575 So. 2d 233, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 675, 1991 WL 9369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grimmage-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.