Parker v. State

586 So. 2d 513, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 13918, 1991 WL 200195
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Parker v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 570 So. 2d 1048
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 8, 1991·No. No. 91-1749·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Andrew Marshall Parker, appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. We reverse.

Appellant pled nolo contendere to aggravated battery, robbery, burglary of a conveyance, grand theft, and criminal mischief. Appellant was sentenced to fifteen years incarceration under the habitual offender statute. See § 775.084(4), Fla.Stat. (1989).

Appellant contends that he was improperly sentenced as a habitual offender because the trial court failed to make the requisite findings pursuant to section 775.-084. The State agrees that the “trial court’s finding that the defendant should be habitualized was not done according to Section 775.084 Fla.Stat. (1989).”

Therefore, the State suggests, and we agree, that this case be remanded for the trial court to make the appropriate requisite findings pursuant to section 775.084. See Rodger v. State, 583 So.2d 429 (Fla.3d DCA 1991); Smith v. State, 573 So.2d 194 (Fla.3d DCA 1991).

Reversed and remanded.

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

Parker v. State, 586 So. 2d 513, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 13918, 1991 WL 200195 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

586 So. 2d 513 (Parker v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. State
573 So. 2d 194 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Rodger v. State
583 So. 2d 429 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)