ANDRE GRAY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
ANDRE GRAY, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
829 So. 2d 986
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2002)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
In this direct appeal, the defendant contends that he should not have been sentenced under the habitual offender statute. Although the defendant had actual notice of the state’s intention to seek an enhanced sentence, the state did not file a written notice as required by the statute. We reverse the judgment and sentence and remand the case for a trial or a new plea and sentencing. See Pitts v. State, 805 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). On remand, the trial court may impose a sentence under the habitual offender statute, provided the state has filed a timely written notice and the court has complied with all of the other requirements of the statute.
WEBSTER, Van NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ashe v. State, 951 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…llant had actual verbal notice of the state’s intent. Actual verbal notice of intent to seek habitualization does not cure failure to file written notice of intent to seek habitualization where an open plea of guilty is entered. See Gray v. State, 829 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Pitts v. State, 805 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). However, on remand, the trial court should consider State v. Blackwell, 661 So. 2d 282 (Fla.1995) where the Florida Supreme Court held that a written plea agreement acknowledg…
-
Akers v. State, 890 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
Authorities Cited
- Pitts v. State, 805 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)