Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

829 So. 2d 986

Docket No. 1D01-4919.

Gray v. State

Andre GRAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 7, 2002.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2002-11-07

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 2007

2 state decisions

Relies on 805 So. 2d 1087 - Pitts v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2002-11-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James W. Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4In this direct appeal, the defendant contends that he should not have been sentenced under the habitual offender statute. Although the defendant had actual notice of the state's intention to seek an enhanced sentence, the state did not file a written notice as required by the statute. We reverse the judgment and sentence and remand the case for a trial or a new plea and sentencing. See Pitts v. State,805 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). On remand, the trial court may impose a sentence under the habitual offender statute, provided the state has filed a timely written notice and the court has complied with all of the other requirements of the statute.

¶5WEBSTER, Van NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

/829/so2d/986 · .json · Public domain