SELVIN WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge.
Having been convicted after a jury trial of sale of cocaine in Count I and possession of cocaine in Count II, the trial court sentenced Appellant as an habitual offender on both counts, despite Appellant’s objection to the habitualization as to Count II. Section 775.084(1)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (1997) specifies that an habitual offender sentence is not to be imposed to a charge of possession of a controlled substance. The sentence as to Count II of Case No. 98-14033 is reversed and the cause is remanded with instructions to sentence Appellant under the guidelines on that count.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Applied Digit. Solutions, Inc. v. Hark Vasa, 941 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…ng client confidences and, on the other hand, permitting a party to hire the counsel of choice. The standard of review for orders entered on motions to disqualify counsel is that of an abuse of discretion. See Stewart v. Bee-Dee Neon & Signs, Inc., 751 So. 2d 196, 205 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). While the trial court’s discretion is limited by the applicable legal principles, the appellate court will not substitute its judgment for the trial court’s express or implied findings of fact which are supported by compete…
-
Manning v. Cooper, 981 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…ing a party to hire the counsel of choice. Orders on motions to disqualify are reviewed under a standard of abuse of discretion. See Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. v. Vasa, 941 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Stewart v. Bee-Dee Neon & Signs, Inc., 751 So. 2d 196, 205 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). The trial court’s discretion is governed by the controlling legal principles, but the appellate court will not substitute its judgment for the trial court’s express or implied findings of fact which are sup [*671] ported by…
-
Schultz v. Schultz, 783 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…squalification of an attorney is an extraordinary remedy, and certiorari will lie to quash an order which improperly disqualifies counsel. See In re Estate of Gory, 570 So. 2d 1381, 1382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). In Stewart v. Bee-Dee Neon & Signs, Inc., 751 So. 2d 196, 205 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), the court described the relevant appellate standard of review as follows: [A] trial court’s decision on a motion for disqualification is reviewed for abuse of discretion, that the trial court’s discretion is limited by the…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence