Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

526 So. 2d 1083

Docket No. 87-0907.

Meehan v. State

John MEEHAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1988-06-29

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 1992

9 state decisions

Relies on 463 So. 2d 521 - Hopkins v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1988-06-29

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Tanja Ostapoff, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4We affirm appellant's conviction but remand this cause for resentencing because of the trial court's failure to make a specific finding that enhanced sentencing under the habitual offender statute is necessary for the protection of the public and so state the factual predicate therefor. Upon resentencing, *1084 the trial court may again consider whether the habitual offender statute should be applied, and, in the event it is found to apply, the above-stated findings must be included in the sentencing order. See Hopkins v. State,463 So.2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

¶5ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

/526/so2d/1083 · .json · Public domain