Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

547 So. 2d 1292

547 So.2d 1292

14 Fla.L.Weekly 2056

Roy v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 30, 1989

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1989-08-30

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 2009

1 state decisions

Relies on 383 So. 2d 219 - Eutsey v. State · 546 So. 2d 727 - Parker v. State · 476 So. 2d 325 - Wright v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-08-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Appellant’s conviction for grand theft is affirmed. However, because the trial court failed to provide specific findings of fact to justify an enhanced sentence under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1987), we must remand for resentencing. See, e.g., Wright v. State, 476 So.2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). If, after remand, the trial court finds that the enhanced sentence is necessary for the protection of the public, it should state with particularity the basis for its finding.*

¶2Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

CAMPBELL, C.J., and SCHEB and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

¶3 Contrary to the assertion in appellant's brief, any such findings do not necessarily have to be in writing so long as they are included in the record of a reported judicial proceeding. Parker v. State, 546 So.2d 727 (Fla.1989); Eutsey v. State, 383 So.2d 219 (Fla.1980).

/547/so2d/1292 · .json · Public domain