Miller v. State

589 So. 2d 1047, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 13254, 1991 WL 272639
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Miller v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 573 So. 2d 405
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 18, 1991·No. No. 89-01943·Published

Opinion

PATTERSON, Judge.

After a jury trial, the appellant was convicted of trespassing, possession of cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia, offenses which occurred on December 6, 1988. He contests the sufficiency of the evidence and his sentence as a habitual offender. We find the evidence presented to be more than adequate and affirm the convictions.

As to the sentence, the state relied on two prior felony convictions entered on the same date to habitualize the appellant. Such convictions are treated as a single offense and the sentence must therefore be reversed. Walker v. State, 567 So.2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Because the appellant did not object to the habitual offender status at the sentencing hearing, on resen-tencing the state will be given another opportunity to' establish that the appellant meets the requirements of section 775.084, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988). See James v. State, 587 So.2d 617 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Johnson v. State, 576 So.2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

Reversed and remanded.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.

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

Miller v. State, 589 So. 2d 1047, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 13254, 1991 WL 272639 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

589 So. 2d 1047 (Miller v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Johnson v. State
576 So. 2d 916 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Walker v. State
567 So. 2d 546 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
James v. State
587 So. 2d 617 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)