Wilkerson v. State

599 So. 2d 1053, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6261, 1992 WL 126580
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Wilkerson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 556 So. 2d 453
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 11, 1992·No. No. 91-1153·Published

Opinion

WOLF, Judge.

We find no merit in appellant’s claim that a violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy occurred. See Goene v. State, 577 So.2d 1306 (Fla.1991). We must, however, remand for resentencing since it is not clear that the state established that the defendant qualified as a habitual offender. The trial court stated that the defendant stipulated as part of the plea agreement that he was a habitual offender. It appears from the record that the stipulation only addressed the state’s right to assert that the defendant was a habitual offender. Jefferson v. State, 571 So.2d 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

We, therefore, affirm the conviction, but reverse and remand for resentencing at which time the state may demonstrate whether appellant qualifies as a habitual offender. Johnson v. State, 576 So.2d 916 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1991).

ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

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

Wilkerson v. State, 599 So. 2d 1053, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6261, 1992 WL 126580 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

599 So. 2d 1053 (Wilkerson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jefferson v. State
571 So. 2d 70 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Goene v. State
577 So. 2d 1306 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1991)
Johnson v. State
576 So. 2d 916 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)