Rosier v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rosier v. State

586 So. 2d 516, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 13971, 1991 WL 204616

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 10, 1991

DocketNo. 90-3044

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 586 So. 2d 516 (Rosier 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

Rosier v. State, 586 So. 2d 516, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 13971, 1991 WL 204616 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Cleveland Rosier, challenges the imposition of an enhanced sentence pursuant to the habitual felony offender statute. Specifically, appellant argues that the trial court sentenced him with an erroneous understanding of his prior criminal behavior. We agree, and find that at sentencing the trial court incorrectly recited appellant’s criminal history, citing offenses not contained within appellant’s presentence investigation and not supported by evidence produced at the sentencing hearing. We reject appellee’s as[517]*517sertion that these errors were harmless. Because we cannot determine whether the errors were crucial to the trial court’s decision to impose a habitual felony offender sentence, we reverse and remand for resen-tencing.

BOOTH, MINER and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Cleveland Rosier, challenges the imposition of an enhanced sentence pursuant to the habitual felony offender statute. Specifically, appellant argues that the trial court sentenced him with an erroneous understanding of his prior criminal behavior. We agree, and find that at sentencing the trial court incorrectly recited appellant’s criminal history, citing offenses not contained within appellant’s presentence investigation and not supported by evidence produced at the sentencing hearing. We reject appellee’s as[517]*517sertion that these errors were harmless. Because we cannot determine whether the errors were crucial to the trial court’s decision to impose a habitual felony offender sentence, we reverse and remand for resen-tencing.

BOOTH, MINER and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

586 So. 2d 516, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 13971, 1991 WL 204616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosier-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack