Legal Opinion

Winchell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 7, 1999No. 97-01679PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

John Winchell appeals his judgment and sentence for aggravated assault. We affirm the judgment without discussion. However, we remand for resentencing because the trial court failed to orally pronounce its intent to impose a minimum mandatory term for Winchell’s habitual offender sentence. See State v. Hudson, 698 So.2d 831 (Fla.1997). Because enhancement under the habitual offender statute is permissive, rather than mandatory, the trial court was required to orally pronounce the minimum mandatory term. See Moody v. State, 699 So.2d 1009 (Fla.1997); Hudson, 698 So.2d at 833. We, therefore,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. HudsonSupreme Court of Florida · 1997
  2. Moody v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1997

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Regino v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2006
  2. Robbins v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API