STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,

v.

BRADFORD SUTTON, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Smith v. State, 651 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
  …ender. After the state presented evidence of appellant’s prior convictions, the trial court merely stated that appellant qualified as a habitual offender. This does not satisfy the statutory requirement for specific findings. See Livernois v. State, 625 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The trial court also found that the intent of the habitual offender statute is that probation and community control are to be treated synonymously. In Overstreet v. State, 629 So. 2d 125 (Fla.1993), the supreme court stated that…
• Reddick v. State, 636 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
  …the trial court shall make specific findings that the preponderance of the evidence establishes the existence of each factor necessary for the imposition of a habitual felony offender. § 775.084(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1991). See also Livernois v. State, 625 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Reversed and remanded. CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LAZZARA, J., concur. . At the time of the armed robbery, Reddick was on probation for two charges of burglary, two charges of grand theft, and one charge of petit theft.…
• Green v. State, 647 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
  …te requires. § 775.084(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1991). Moreover, because copies of the convictions were not included in this record, we are unable to discern whether factors supporting habituali-zation existed at the time of sentencing. Livernois v. State, 625 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). As such, we cannot ascertain whether the trial court’s failure to make specific findings was harmless error. Herrington v. State, 643 So. 2d 1078 (Fla.1994) (trial court’s failure to make the findings required under section 775.0…

Authorities Cited

• State v. Ferris, 623 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)