Watts v. State

HALL, Judge.

Ronald Watts appeals from his judgment and sentence for obtaining property in return for a worthless check. He argues that the state failed to prove an element of the offense and that the trial court erred in imposing a sentence which exceeds the statutory maximum based on a finding that the appellant is a habitual offender. We affirm the appellant’s conviction but remand for resentencing.

We find no merit in the appellant’s first argument. At trial the state sufficiently proved the elements of the offense by introducing the testimony of a sales person that the appellant was given…