Rodger v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rodger v. State

583 So. 2d 429, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8062, 1991 WL 147694

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 6, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2252

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 583 So. 2d 429 (Rodger 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

Rodger v. State, 583 So. 2d 429, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8062, 1991 WL 147694 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Donald Rodger, appeals his conviction and sentence for grand theft. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Appellant was convicted of grand theft and sentenced as a habitual offender. Appellant contends, and the State concedes, that appellant’s sentence as a habitual offender must be reversed because the trial court failed to make the requisite findings to support the habitual sentence. See Smith v. State, 573 So.2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s sentence.

However, on remand, the trial court may resentence appellant as a habitual offender if the requisite statutory findings are made by the court and supported by the evidence. Smith v. State, 573 So.2d at 194.

Finally, we affirm appellant’s conviction in all other respects. See C.C. v. State, 576 So.2d 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

[430]*430Affirmed m part, reversed m part, and remanded.

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