Norton v. State

Robert K. NORTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 23, 1998.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1998-10-23

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 2000

5 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Because Norton was not sentenced as a habitual offender initially, he cannot be sentenced as such after revocation of probation.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Daiuto v. State

Relies on 681 So. 2d 1136 - King v. State · 986 So. 2d 625 - State v. Clark · Simon v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1998-10-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and James R. Wulchak, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ann M. Childs, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Norton appeals the habitual offender sentence imposed following revocation of his probation. Because Norton was not sentenced as a habitual offender initially, he cannot be sentenced as such after revocation of probation. See Albritton v. State,709 So.2d 101 (Fla.1998); King v. State,681 So.2d 1136 (Fla.1996); Battle v. State, *986 710 So.2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Simon v. State,684 So.2d 263 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

¶5REVERSED AND REMANDED.

¶6COBB, GOSHORN and PETERSON, JJ., concur.