Hinrichsen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hinrichsen v. State

711 So. 2d 1337, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 6567, 1998 WL 299353

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 10, 1998

DocketNo. 97-03393

StatusPublished

This text of 711 So. 2d 1337 (Hinrichsen 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

Hinrichsen v. State, 711 So. 2d 1337, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 6567, 1998 WL 299353 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.

The appellant challenges a habitual felony offender sentence imposed after his conviction for felony driving while license suspended or revoked. He contends that the habitual felony offender classification is invalid because the trial court initiated the habitual-ization process by preparing and filing the notice of enhanced penalty required by section 775.084(3)(a)2., Florida Statutes (1995). The State concedes that the habitual felony offender sentence must be reversed pursuant to Young v. State, 699 So.2d 624 (Fla.1997), wherein the supreme court held that the decision to prosecute a defendant as a habitual offender is a prosecutorial function to be initiated at the prosecutor’s discretion and not by the trial court. We therefore reverse the appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

Reversed and remanded.

PATTERSON and GREEN, JJ., concur.

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

THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.

The appellant challenges a habitual felony offender sentence imposed after his conviction for felony driving while license suspended or revoked. He contends that the habitual felony offender classification is invalid because the trial court initiated the habitual-ization process by preparing and filing the notice of enhanced penalty required by section 775.084(3)(a)2., Florida Statutes (1995). The State concedes that the habitual felony offender sentence must be reversed pursuant to Young v. State, 699 So.2d 624 (Fla.1997), wherein the supreme court held that the decision to prosecute a defendant as a habitual offender is a prosecutorial function to be initiated at the prosecutor’s discretion and not by the trial court. We therefore reverse the appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

Reversed and remanded.

PATTERSON and GREEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

711 So. 2d 1337, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 6567, 1998 WL 299353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinrichsen-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack