Daniels v. State, 593 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Daniels v. State, 593 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mendoza v. State (fladistctapp, 2006-11-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mendoza v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
Cleveland v. State, 587 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 1991); Allen v. State, 643 So.2d 87, 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Cruz v. State, 593 So.2d 312, 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
cited Cited "see, e.g." McGahee v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Cruz v. State, 593 So.2d 312, 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Davis v. State, 590 So.2d 496 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
Paul DANIELS
v.
STATE of Florida
No. 91-1470.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Jan 31, 1992.
593 So. 2d 312
Appellant pro se., Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Gypsy Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Ervin, Kahn, Webster.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his “Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence.” We reverse and remand.

In March 1988, appellant was adjudicated guilty of a felony petit theft which had been committed in September 1985. The trial court sentenced appellant to ten years in prison, as an habitual felony offender. Section 775.084(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1985). Appellant appealed to this court, which reversed the sentence and remanded for re-sentencing because “the factual recitations justifying the enhanced sentence ... [were] not supported by the record.” Daniels v. State, 545 So.2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

On remand, the trial court again found appellant to be an habitual felony offender; and again sentenced him to ten years in prison. However, in doing so, the trial court failed to make all of the specific findings of fact required by statute before an habitual offender sentence may be imposed. The failure to make the requisite findings is fundamental error, resulting in an illegal sentence which may be corrected at any time, regardless of whether or not a contemporaneous objection has been made. See Walker v. State, 462 So.2d 452 (Fla. 1985). Accordingly, we must again reverse and remand to the trial court with directions that it resentence appellant.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

ERVIN, KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.