Scott v. State, 81-2011
| Decision Date | 28 December 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-2011,81-2011 |
| Citation | 423 So.2d 986 |
| Parties | David SCOTT a/k/a David Scott Williams, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and John H. Lipinski, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Jack Ludin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
Appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error in the trial proceedings, the judgments of conviction and sentence for burglary and theft are affirmed. The sentence was enhanced pursuant to Section 775.084(4), Florida Statutes (1979) and is supported only by the oral finding that "this is necessary for the protection of society", which finding is woefully short of what is required by the statute. Ruiz v. State, 407 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We reverse the enhanced portion of the sentence and remand for further findings and resentencing in accordance with this opinion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. State, 89-1227
...habitual offender was necessary to protect the public is insufficient. Pugh v. State, 547 So.2d 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Scott v. State, 423 So.2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). In Pugh, the court merely referred to the appellant's criminal history. By contrast, in the present case, the court reli......
- Tackett v. State, 81-2332