McKnight v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McKnight v. State

595 So. 2d 1059, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 2495, 1992 WL 45688

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 11, 1992

DocketNo. 90-03255

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 595 So. 2d 1059 (McKnight 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

McKnight v. State, 595 So. 2d 1059, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 2495, 1992 WL 45688 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Although we find no merit m appellant s contention that it was error to impose probation in sentencing him under the habitual offender statute, King v. State, No. 91-00036, 597 So.2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), we must reverse and remand for further proceedings. The appellant waived presentation of the presentence investigation report but did ask that certified copies of the prior convictions be placed in the court file. The record does not indicate that certified copies of the prior convictions were produced, and therefore, there is no indication that the trial court made the required findings concerning prior convictions. See West v. State, 583 So.2d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). We, accordingly, remand so that the trial court may either make the required findings or, if the requisite prior convictions do not exist, resentence him.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and THREADGILL and HALL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Although we find no merit m appellant s contention that it was error to impose probation in sentencing him under the habitual offender statute, King v. State, No. 91-00036, 597 So.2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), we must reverse and remand for further proceedings. The appellant waived presentation of the presentence investigation report but did ask that certified copies of the prior convictions be placed in the court file. The record does not indicate that certified copies of the prior convictions were produced, and therefore, there is no indication that the trial court made the required findings concerning prior convictions. See West v. State, 583 So.2d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). We, accordingly, remand so that the trial court may either make the required findings or, if the requisite prior convictions do not exist, resentence him.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and THREADGILL and HALL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

595 So. 2d 1059, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 2495, 1992 WL 45688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcknight-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack