Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

617 So. 2d 431

Docket No. 92-2362.

Bardwell v. State

Tim BARDWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1993-04-28

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 2009

5 state decisions

Relies on Likely v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1993-04-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Kendall J. Phillips of Phillips & Gale, P.A., Fort Pierce, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Don M. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4We affirm the conviction of appellant but reverse the sentence because of the trial court's failure to follow the mandatory provisions of section 775.084(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), which require the trial court to obtain a presentence investigation prior to sentencing a defendant as an habitual felony offender. While the defendant can knowingly waive the requirement of a P.S.I., see Likely v. State,583 So.2d 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the record in this case does not reveal such a waiver.

¶5*432 Reversed and remanded for resentencing.

¶6ANSTEAD, HERSEY and WARNER, JJ., concur.

/617/so2d/431 · .json · Public domain