Stanley v. State
538 So. 2d 1390, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 678, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1353, 1989 WL 21448
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 14, 1989·No. No. 88-544·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
None of the grounds asserted by the defendant for reversal of his conviction present either error or harm. See M.H. v. State, 538 So.2d 1389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). We remand the cause, however, to the trial court for the purposes (a) of correcting the judgment so as accurately to reflect the offense of which the appellant was found guilty and (b) of making the required written findings in support of the determination that Stanley is an habitual offender. See Link v. State, 537 So.2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Stanley v. State, 538 So. 2d 1390, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 678, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1353, 1989 WL 21448 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).
538 So. 2d 1390 (Stanley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Robinson v. State
540 So. 2d 265 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Rivera v. Aldrich
538 So. 2d 1390 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)