Sykes v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sykes v. State

608 So. 2d 933, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11655, 1992 WL 336071

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 18, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1718

StatusPublished

This text of 608 So. 2d 933 (Sykes 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

Sykes v. State, 608 So. 2d 933, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11655, 1992 WL 336071 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of guilty of burglary and felony petit theft. We affirm that judgment.

This is also an appeal from a judgment of guilty as an habitual offender and from the sentences. Appellant points out and the state concedes that the trial court failed to make the requisite statutory findings before sentencing appellant as an habitual offender. See § 775.084(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989). Subsection (3) of the above statute clearly spells out the requirements of the separate proceeding. Accordingly, we reverse and remand that judgment and sentence with direction to comply with the statute.

Appellant’s argument that he must be given a non-habitual sentence upon remand is without merit. See Johnson v. State, 576 So.2d 916, 918 (Fla. 2d DCA1991); Rolle v. State, 586 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA1991).

[934]*934Appellant concedes that the written sentence does conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence. Accordingly, we affirm as to appellant’s third point on appeal.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of guilty of burglary and felony petit theft. We affirm that judgment.

This is also an appeal from a judgment of guilty as an habitual offender and from the sentences. Appellant points out and the state concedes that the trial court failed to make the requisite statutory findings before sentencing appellant as an habitual offender. See § 775.084(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989). Subsection (3) of the above statute clearly spells out the requirements of the separate proceeding. Accordingly, we reverse and remand that judgment and sentence with direction to comply with the statute.

Appellant’s argument that he must be given a non-habitual sentence upon remand is without merit. See Johnson v. State, 576 So.2d 916, 918 (Fla. 2d DCA1991); Rolle v. State, 586 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA1991).

[934]*934Appellant concedes that the written sentence does conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence. Accordingly, we affirm as to appellant’s third point on appeal.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

608 So. 2d 933, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11655, 1992 WL 336071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sykes-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack