From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pinacle v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Feb 25, 1991
573 So. 2d 925 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Opinion

No. 90-64.

January 2, 1991. Rehearing Denied February 25, 1991.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County; Phillip W. Knight, Judge.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Harvey J. Sepler, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Joan L. Greenberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and COPE, JJ.


As correctly agreed to by the state, the habitual offender sentence imposed below is vacated solely upon the ground that the trial court failed, as is required under the applicable statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1987), to make specific findings of fact showing that an enhanced prison term is required for the protection of the public. Moreno v. State, 550 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The cause is remanded for resentencing in accordance with Moreno. There is no merit in the appellant's other contentions on appeal.

This requirement was eliminated by a subsequent statutory amendment. Ch. 88-131, § 6(3) Laws of Florida, codified as § 775.084(3), Fla. Stat. (1989); see Garvin v. State, 567 So.2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Arnold v. State, 566 So.2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Donald v. State, 562 So.2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).


Summaries of

Pinacle v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Feb 25, 1991
573 So. 2d 925 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
Case details for

Pinacle v. State

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL PINACLE, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Feb 25, 1991

Citations

573 So. 2d 925 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)