Wells v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wells v. State

630 So. 2d 1215, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 195, 1994 WL 12240

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Wells v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 598 So. 2d 259 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 21, 1994·No. No. 92-2363·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s judgments and sentences which were imposed following his pleas of guilty; however, we modify the sentencing orders relative to appellant’s three convictions for attempted forgery, a misdemeanor, to delete the habitual offender designation for these offenses because a misdemeanor conviction “is not subject to enhancement under the habitual felony offender statute.” Brown v. State, 626 So.2d 297, 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993):

AFFIRMED as modified.

DAUKSCH, COBB and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s judgments and sentences which were imposed following his pleas of guilty; however, we modify the sentencing orders relative to appellant’s three convictions for attempted forgery, a misdemeanor, to delete the habitual offender designation for these offenses because a misdemeanor conviction “is not subject to enhancement under the habitual felony offender statute.” Brown v. State, 626 So.2d 297, 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993):

AFFIRMED as modified.

DAUKSCH, COBB and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

Wells v. State, 630 So. 2d 1215, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 195, 1994 WL 12240 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

630 So. 2d 1215 (Wells v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related