Legal Opinion

Hill v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 17, 1992No. 91-2426PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

We reverse appellant’s sentence as a habitual offender because the trial court failed to make the requisite findings pursuant to section 775.084(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989). See Rolle v. State, 586 So.2d *5911293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Simon v. State, 589 So.2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Anderson v. State, 592 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We also adopt the question certified by the First District Court of Appeal in Anderson, and certify it as one of great public importance as restated in Banes v. State, 597 So.2d 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

On remand, the trial court may again sentence…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Anderson v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992
  2. Rolle v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1991
  3. Simon v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1991
  4. Meehan v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1988
  5. Banes v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. HillSupreme Court of Florida · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API