Wanser v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wanser v. State

620 So. 2d 233, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6498, 1993 WL 210571

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 18, 1993

DocketNo. 91-04073

StatusPublished

This text of 620 So. 2d 233 (Wanser 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

Wanser v. State, 620 So. 2d 233, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6498, 1993 WL 210571 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges his habitual offender sentences in seven cases. We reverse the sentences in five of those eases and affirm the sentences in the other two cases.

In the first five cases involved in this appeal the appellant was sentenced for offenses underlying probation. In each of those cases, the appellant entered a plea of no contest or guilty. In none of these [234]*234cases was the defendant given written notice of intent to habitualize.

The supreme court has recently held that in order for a defendant to be habitualized following a guilty or nolo plea, the defendant must be given written notice of intent to habitualize and the court must confirm that the defendant is personally aware of the possibility and reasonable consequences of habitualization. Snead v. State, 616 So.2d 964 (Fla.1993). The requirements of this rule were not met in the first five cases brought here for review by the appellant. Accordingly, we reverse the appellant’s sentences in those eases (Circuit Court Cases No. 89-7893, No. 89-13253, No. 89-15281, No. 90-3238, and No. 90-3408) and remand for resentencing in those cases within the sentencing guidelines.

■ In the other two cases, No. 91-10555 and No. 91-12136, the appellant pled no contest to charged offenses for which he had not previously been sentenced. The sentences in these cases meet the requirements of the rule expressed in Snead. Accordingly, we affirm those sentences.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges his habitual offender sentences in seven cases. We reverse the sentences in five of those eases and affirm the sentences in the other two cases.

In the first five cases involved in this appeal the appellant was sentenced for offenses underlying probation. In each of those cases, the appellant entered a plea of no contest or guilty. In none of these [234]*234cases was the defendant given written notice of intent to habitualize.

The supreme court has recently held that in order for a defendant to be habitualized following a guilty or nolo plea, the defendant must be given written notice of intent to habitualize and the court must confirm that the defendant is personally aware of the possibility and reasonable consequences of habitualization. Snead v. State, 616 So.2d 964 (Fla.1993). The requirements of this rule were not met in the first five cases brought here for review by the appellant. Accordingly, we reverse the appellant’s sentences in those eases (Circuit Court Cases No. 89-7893, No. 89-13253, No. 89-15281, No. 90-3238, and No. 90-3408) and remand for resentencing in those cases within the sentencing guidelines.

■ In the other two cases, No. 91-10555 and No. 91-12136, the appellant pled no contest to charged offenses for which he had not previously been sentenced. The sentences in these cases meet the requirements of the rule expressed in Snead. Accordingly, we affirm those sentences.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

620 So. 2d 233, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6498, 1993 WL 210571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wanser-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack