Pittman v. State

Michael PITTMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 9, 1999.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1999.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1999-06-09

Relies on Barber v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1999-06-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently September 2013

4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Michael Pittman, in proper person.

¶2 *595 Robert A. Butterworth, Tallahassee, Attorney General, for appellee.

¶3Before NESBITT, SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Of the issues raised by the defendant in this appeal we agree with the State that there is merit only in one. Defendant argues that his ten (10) year sentence on the charge of possession of cocaine is illegal because "Section 775.084(1)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1995), does not permit enhanced sentencing as a habitual offender if the felony is `a violation of Section 893.13 relating to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance.'" Barber v. State,699 So.2d 325, 325-26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Accordingly, we reverse the defendant's habitual offender sentence for the charge of possession of cocaine and remand with instructions to vacate that sentence and resentence the defendant on that count.

¶6Reversed and remanded.