From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gray v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Nov 7, 2002
829 So. 2d 986 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Opinion

Case No. 1D01-4919

Opinion filed November 7, 2002.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County. Russell A. Cole, Jr., Judge.

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

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


In 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.

WEBSTER, VAN NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.


Summaries of

Gray v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Nov 7, 2002
829 So. 2d 986 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
Case details for

Gray v. State

Case Details

Full title:ANDRE GRAY, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Nov 7, 2002

Citations

829 So. 2d 986 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Citing Cases

Ashe v. State

Actual verbal notice of intent to seek habitualization does not cure failure to file written notice of intent…

Akers v. State

Despite the fact that the defendant had actual notice of the state's intention prior to the plea, this court…