¶1The appellant challenges his habitual offender sentence, arguing that the court erred in failing to make the requisite findings under section 775.084, Florida Statutes. Because the appellant’s counsel acknowledged at the sentencing hearing that the appellant qualified for a habitual offender sentence, the necessity of specific findings under the statute was waived. See Robinson v. State, 605 So.2d 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The challenged sentence is therefore affirmed.
611 So. 2d 22
Cato v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided December 22, 1992
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1992-12-22
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1993
1 state decisions
Relies on 605 So. 2d 500 - Robinson v. State
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1992-12-22
View the full empirical analysis of this case →