Rowe v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rowe v. State

579 So. 2d 142, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2670, 1991 WL 38140

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 22, 1991

DocketNo. 89-02582

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 579 So. 2d 142 (Rowe 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

Rowe v. State, 579 So. 2d 142, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2670, 1991 WL 38140 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Edward Rowe was convicted of robbery by force and sentenced as a habitual offender. He raises several issues directed at his conviction and sentence. We affirm his conviction without discussion. Regarding his classification as a habitual offender, Mr. Rowe correctly observes that the trial court improperly enhanced his sentence under the applicable habitual offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1987), without finding that the enhanced sentence was necessary for the protection of the public.

Affirmed in part, reversed, and remanded for resentencing. On remand, the trial court may again impose a habitual offender sentence if the proper findings are made.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Edward Rowe was convicted of robbery by force and sentenced as a habitual offender. He raises several issues directed at his conviction and sentence. We affirm his conviction without discussion. Regarding his classification as a habitual offender, Mr. Rowe correctly observes that the trial court improperly enhanced his sentence under the applicable habitual offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1987), without finding that the enhanced sentence was necessary for the protection of the public.

Affirmed in part, reversed, and remanded for resentencing. On remand, the trial court may again impose a habitual offender sentence if the proper findings are made.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

579 So. 2d 142, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2670, 1991 WL 38140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowe-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack