From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peterson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Apr 10, 1991
576 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Opinion

No. 90-2068.

April 10, 1991.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Broward County; Stanton S. Kaplan, Judge.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Douglas J. Glaid, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.


AFFIRMED. However, as conceded by the state, we must remand for correction of the written sentencing order. As to Count II, the trial judge correctly stated that appellant's misdemeanor conviction could not be enhanced, but erroneously marked the habitual offender section. Upon remand, the sentencing order for Count II must be corrected to reflect that the special sentencing provision for habitual offender status does not apply to the misdemeanor offense. § 775.084(1)(a)2, Fla. Stat. (1989).

DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Peterson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Apr 10, 1991
576 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
Case details for

Peterson v. State

Case Details

Full title:VAUGHN M. PETERSON, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Apr 10, 1991

Citations

576 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Citing Cases

Simmons v. State

Appellant cannot be sentenced as an habitual offender for a misdemeanor offense. Peterson v. State, 576 So.2d…

Powell v. State

We must, therefore, remand this case to the trial court with instructions to delete the habitual offender…