MARK A. LAWSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
Appellant’s counsel stipulated that the trial judge could sentence appellant as a habitual felony offender, however, the trial judge failed to set forth findings for the imposition of the enhanced sentence as envisioned by section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1979). Appellant was then sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment for escape. Appellant appeals from the enhanced sentence.
The judgment is affirmed but the case is remanded for the imposition of a new sentence accompanied by the necessary findings as specified by section 775.084. In addition to appellant’s counsel’s stipulation, the written judgment and sentence should reflect that appellant was sentenced as a habitual felony offender. SCHEB, C. J., and DANAHY and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cavallaro v. State, 420 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…trial court must make findings of fact that demonstrate on their face that an extended term of imprisonment is necessary to protect the public from a defendant’s further criminal conduct. Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1980); Lawson v. State, 409 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). See also Lee v. State, 410 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). In the instant case, the judge failed to make specific findings of fact sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 775.-084(3)(d). Accordingly, we affirm appellant…
-
LEE v. State, 410 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…rt must find the enhanced penalty is necessary for the protection of the public and specify in the record the evidence upon which it relied. § 775.084(3)(d). This affords the defendant an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. Lawson v. State, 409 So. 2d 181 (Fla.2d DCA 1982); Bell v. State, 382 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Fry v. State, 359 So. 2d 584 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). Accordingly, we vacate the defendant’s conviction, award him a new trial, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.…