Staten v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Staten v. State

585 So. 2d 1196, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9868, 1991 WL 191614

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Staten v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 600 So. 2d 1269 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 25, 1991·No. No. 90-02085·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse those portions of the defendant’s sentences which classify the defendant as an habitual offender. From the record, it appears that the state failed to provide notice of its intention to seek habitual offender status. § 775.084(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (1989). On remand, the state may [1197]*1197again seek habitual offender status after it provides proper written notice. See Scott v. State, 446 So.2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Reversed and remanded.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse those portions of the defendant’s sentences which classify the defendant as an habitual offender. From the record, it appears that the state failed to provide notice of its intention to seek habitual offender status. § 775.084(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (1989). On remand, the state may [1197]*1197again seek habitual offender status after it provides proper written notice. See Scott v. State, 446 So.2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Reversed and remanded.

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

Staten v. State, 585 So. 2d 1196, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9868, 1991 WL 191614 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

585 So. 2d 1196 (Staten v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related