Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

576 So. 2d 1385

Docket No. 90-2068.

Peterson v. State

Vaughn M. PETERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1991-04-10

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 1995

6 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1991-04-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

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

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Douglas J. Glaid, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4AFFIRMED. However, as conceded by the state, we must remand for correction of the written sentencing order. As to Count II, the trial judge correctly stated that appellant's misdemeanor conviction could not be enhanced, but erroneously marked the habitual offender section. Upon remand, the sentencing order for Count II must be corrected to reflect that the special sentencing provision for habitual offender status does not apply to the misdemeanor offense. § 775.084(1)(a)2, Fla. Stat. (1989).

¶5DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

/576/so2d/1385 · .json · Public domain