Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

740 So. 2d 572

Winchell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1999-07-07

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 2006

2 state decisions

Relies on 698 So. 2d 831 - State v. Hudson · Moody v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1999-07-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1John Winchell appeals his judgment and sentence for aggravated assault. We affirm the judgment without discussion. However, we remand for resentencing because the trial court failed to orally pronounce its intent to impose a minimum mandatory term for Winchell’s habitual offender sentence. See State v. Hudson, 698 So.2d 831 (Fla.1997). Because enhancement under the habitual offender statute is permissive, rather than mandatory, the trial court was required to orally pronounce the minimum mandatory term. See Moody v. State, 699 So.2d 1009 (Fla.1997); Hudson, 698 So.2d at 833. We, therefore, reverse the sentence. On remand, the trial court should enter a written sentence which conforms with the court’s original oral pronouncement.

¶2Affirmed in part, and remanded for re-sentencing.

PARKER, C.J., THREADGILL and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
/740/so2d/572 · .json · Public domain