Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Peterson v. State

Peterson v. State

576 So. 2d 1385, 1991 WL 50140
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 10, 1991·No. 90-2068·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

576 So.2d 1385 (1991)

Vaughn M. PETERSON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 90-2068.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 10, 1991.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Douglas J. Glaid, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. However, as conceded by the state, we must remand for correction of the written sentencing order. As to Count II, the trial judge correctly stated that appellant's misdemeanor conviction could not be enhanced, but erroneously marked the habitual offender section. Upon remand, the sentencing order for Count II must be corrected to reflect that the special sentencing provision for habitual offender status does not apply to the misdemeanor offense. § 775.084(1)(a)2, Fla. Stat. (1989).

DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

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

Peterson v. State, 576 So. 2d 1385, 1991 WL 50140 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

576 So. 2d 1385 (Peterson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pace v. State
662 So. 2d 1001 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Powell v. State
602 So. 2d 695 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Mitchell v. State
596 So. 2d 1275 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Simmons v. State
594 So. 2d 853 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
DuBose v. State
585 So. 2d 1198 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)