From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Apr 10, 1990
559 So. 2d 385 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Opinion

No. 89-1653.

April 10, 1990.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County; Ursula M. Ungaro, Judge.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Patricia Ann Ash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and GODERICH, JJ.


As the instant offense was committed after October 1, 1988, the amended version of the habitual offender statute applied, which deleted the requirement that the trial court determine if habitual offender treatment "is necessary for the protection of the public. . . ." Ch. 88-131, § 6, Laws of Fla.; see § 775.084(3), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1988); Robinson v. State, 551 So.2d 1240, 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The trial court's oral findings need not be reduced to writing and were otherwise sufficient. See Parker v. State, 546 So.2d 727, 729 (Fla. 1989), overruling sub silentio Rodriguez v. State, 542 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), and Scott v. State, 423 So.2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Taylor v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Apr 10, 1990
559 So. 2d 385 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
Case details for

Taylor v. State

Case Details

Full title:SHARON TAYLOR, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Apr 10, 1990

Citations

559 So. 2d 385 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Citing Cases

Johnson v. State

The amended statute, which applies to appellant's sentence because both commission of the offense and…

Thompson v. State

Section 775.084(3), as amended, does not require a finding that a habitual offender sentence is necessary for…