Logan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Logan v. State

554 So. 2d 1218, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 41

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 5, 1990

DocketNos. 88-01973, 88-01975

StatusPublished

This text of 554 So. 2d 1218 (Logan 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

Logan v. State, 554 So. 2d 1218, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 41 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

RYDER, Judge.

On this four-point appeal, we find no error and affirm, save for Point II relating to the enhancing of appellant Turner’s sentence without complying with the provisions of section 775.084(3), Florida Statutes (1987).

Turner was convicted of sexual battery and was sentenced as a habitual offender. The only meritorious point he raises is the trial judge’s adjudication of him as a habitual offender. Such an adjudication must be based on a two-prong finding of proper number and kind of prior offenses and that the public’s protection necessitates that the defendant be sentenced to an extended term. While the trial judge correctly found that Turner could be characterized as a habitual offender under the first prong, the judge failed to make the specific finding that an extended sentence was necessary for the protection of the public. There is record support for such a finding. Therefore, we remand for the entry of the necessary finding.

Affirmed, but remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.

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

RYDER, Judge.

On this four-point appeal, we find no error and affirm, save for Point II relating to the enhancing of appellant Turner’s sentence without complying with the provisions of section 775.084(3), Florida Statutes (1987).

Turner was convicted of sexual battery and was sentenced as a habitual offender. The only meritorious point he raises is the trial judge’s adjudication of him as a habitual offender. Such an adjudication must be based on a two-prong finding of proper number and kind of prior offenses and that the public’s protection necessitates that the defendant be sentenced to an extended term. While the trial judge correctly found that Turner could be characterized as a habitual offender under the first prong, the judge failed to make the specific finding that an extended sentence was necessary for the protection of the public. There is record support for such a finding. Therefore, we remand for the entry of the necessary finding.

Affirmed, but remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

554 So. 2d 1218, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/logan-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.