Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Murray v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 17, 1992No. 91-1450Published

1Concurrence

FARMER, Judge,

specially concurring.

If I were writing on a clean slate, and I recognize that I am not, I would instruct the trial court on remand that appellant’s sentence must be limited to one within the guidelines and in no event greater than the one provided by law for his conviction. I thus disagree with our decision in King v. State, 580 So.2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (en banc), in which we held that, after an invalid attempt to impose a habitual offender sentence, the trial court is free to reimpose the same habitual offender sentence so long as it complies with the statutory…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Pope v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1990
  2. Shull v. DuggerSupreme Court of Florida · 1987
  3. King v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1991
  4. Pollard v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API