Pope v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pope v. State

475 So. 2d 1021, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2259, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16042

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 25, 1985

DocketNo. 84-2650

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 475 So. 2d 1021 (Pope 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

Pope v. State, 475 So. 2d 1021, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2259, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16042 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHAN, Judge.

Defendant contends that his enhanced sentence as an habitual offender following his conviction for grand theft was erroneous because the trial court made no finding that the enhanced sentence was necessary to protect the public as required by section 775.04(3), Florida Statutes (1983). We agree. See Walker v. State, 462 So.2d 452 (Fla.1985); Brown v. State, 457 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).

We find no merit in defendant’s remaining contention. See Rasul v. State, 465 So.2d 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); McCuiston v. State, 462 So.2d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.

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