Winchell v. State

740 So. 2d 572, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9052, 1999 WL 453840
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 7, 1999·No. No. 97-01679·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

John Winchell appeals his judgment and sentence for aggravated assault. We affirm the judgment without discussion. However, we remand for resentencing because the trial court failed to orally pronounce its intent to impose a minimum mandatory term for Winchell’s habitual offender sentence. See State v. Hudson, 698 So.2d 831 (Fla.1997). Because enhancement under the habitual offender statute is permissive, rather than mandatory, the trial court was required to orally pronounce the minimum mandatory term. See Moody v. State, 699 So.2d 1009 (Fla.1997); Hudson, 698 So.2d at 833. We, therefore, reverse the sentence. On remand, the trial court should enter a written sentence which conforms with the court’s original oral pronouncement.

Affirmed in part, and remanded for re-sentencing.

PARKER, C.J., THREADGILL and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

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

Winchell v. State, 740 So. 2d 572, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9052, 1999 WL 453840 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

740 So. 2d 572 (Winchell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Regino v. State
921 So. 2d 845 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Robbins v. State
813 So. 2d 960 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)