PAUL R. ROY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Specific Findings Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant’s conviction for grand theft is affirmed. However, because the trial court failed to provide specific findings of fact to justify an enhanced sentence under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1987), we must remand for resentencing. See, e.g., Wright v. State, 476 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). If, after remand, the trial court finds that the enhanced sentence is necessary for the protection of the public, it should state with particularity the basis for its finding.*
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
CAMPBELL, C.J., and SCHEB and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur. *
Contrary to the assertion in appellant's brief, any such findings do not necessarily have to be in writing so long as they are included in the record of a reported judicial proceeding. Parker v. State, 546 So. 2d 727 (Fla.1989); Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Good v. State, 11 So. 3d 991 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…ublic defender was ordered to file a supplemental initial brief addressing whether reversible error was committed when Appellant’s probation was revoked due to his arrest for DUI. We cited Hines v. State, 358 So. 2d 183 (Fla.1978); Lockett v. State, 547 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), and Purvis v. State, 397 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), which stand, overall, for the proposition that probation cannot be revoked based solely on proof of an arrest during the probationary period where the sole condition asser…
Authorities Cited
- Fredford James Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1980)
- Timmie Lewis Parker v. State, 546 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1989)
- Cleveland Wright v. State, 476 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)