Rowe v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rowe v. State

626 So. 2d 257, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9872, 1993 WL 383504

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 1, 1993·No. No. 92-04075·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant’s sentence is before this court for the third time on appeal. He contends the habitual offender sentence imposed upon remand is improper because the trial [258] court once again faded to make specific findings of fact to satisfy section 775.084(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1987). Although the trial court’s findings made on remand are conclu-sory, the record provides ample support for the trial court’s conclusions and allows meaningful appellate review. We therefore affirm the appellant’s sentence as a habitual felony-offender. See McClain v. State, 356 So.2d 1256 (Fla.2d DCA 1978).

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and BLUE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant’s sentence is before this court for the third time on appeal. He contends the habitual offender sentence imposed upon remand is improper because the trial [258] court once again faded to make specific findings of fact to satisfy section 775.084(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1987). Although the trial court’s findings made on remand are conclu-sory, the record provides ample support for the trial court’s conclusions and allows meaningful appellate review. We therefore affirm the appellant’s sentence as a habitual felony-offender. See McClain v. State, 356 So.2d 1256 (Fla.2d DCA 1978).

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and BLUE, JJ., concur.

Rowe v. State, 626 So. 2d 257, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9872, 1993 WL 383504 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

626 So. 2d 257 (Rowe v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related