Nichols v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nichols v. State

554 So. 2d 669, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 62, 1990 WL 770

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 5, 1990

DocketNo. 89-00181

StatusPublished

This text of 554 So. 2d 669 (Nichols 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

Nichols v. State, 554 So. 2d 669, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 62, 1990 WL 770 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the defendant’s judgments and sentences for two separate acts, sale of cocaine and possession of cocaine. The trial court correctly enhanced the sentence under the habitual offender statute and made the necessary findings on the record. § 775.084, Fla.Stat. (1987). On remand, however, each sentence shall be clerically corrected to reflect that the defendant was sentenced under the special provisions for habitual offenders.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the defendant’s judgments and sentences for two separate acts, sale of cocaine and possession of cocaine. The trial court correctly enhanced the sentence under the habitual offender statute and made the necessary findings on the record. § 775.084, Fla.Stat. (1987). On remand, however, each sentence shall be clerically corrected to reflect that the defendant was sentenced under the special provisions for habitual offenders.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

554 So. 2d 669, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 62, 1990 WL 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nichols-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.