Hauss v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hauss v. State

574 So. 2d 1141, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 605, 1991 WL 7681

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 30, 1991

DocketNo. 89-3204

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 574 So. 2d 1141 (Hauss 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

Hauss v. State, 574 So. 2d 1141, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 605, 1991 WL 7681 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

LETTS, Judge.

We withdraw our prior opinion, issued on December 28, 1990, and substitute the following:

The trial judge adjudicated the defendant guilty of a third degree felony DUI pursuant to sections 316.193(1) and (2)(b), Florida Statutes (1989). We reverse.

The three previous DUI convictions were not specifically alleged in the information and only the applicable statutory sections were alleged. In our initial opinion, we deemed the cite to the statute sufficient under Pritchard v. State, 528 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), and State v. Phillips, 463 So.2d 1136 (Fla.1985). However, the Supreme Court has now ruled that “the state must allege the specific, prior DUI convictions in the charging document.” State v. Rodriguez, 16 F.L.W. S32, 34 (Fla. Jan. 3, 1991).

We reverse and direct the trial court to enter an adjudication of first offense DUI and to resentence the defendant, accordingly-

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

LETTS, Judge.

We withdraw our prior opinion, issued on December 28, 1990, and substitute the following:

The trial judge adjudicated the defendant guilty of a third degree felony DUI pursuant to sections 316.193(1) and (2)(b), Florida Statutes (1989). We reverse.

The three previous DUI convictions were not specifically alleged in the information and only the applicable statutory sections were alleged. In our initial opinion, we deemed the cite to the statute sufficient under Pritchard v. State, 528 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), and State v. Phillips, 463 So.2d 1136 (Fla.1985). However, the Supreme Court has now ruled that “the state must allege the specific, prior DUI convictions in the charging document.” State v. Rodriguez, 16 F.L.W. S32, 34 (Fla. Jan. 3, 1991).

We reverse and direct the trial court to enter an adjudication of first offense DUI and to resentence the defendant, accordingly-

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

574 So. 2d 1141, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 605, 1991 WL 7681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hauss-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack