Case ID: so2d_573/html/1066-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "FRANK, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Memphis Ford WARE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 90-01039.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Feb. 8, 1991.
    James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Stephen Krosschell, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Dell H. Edwards, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
   FRANK, Judge.

Memphis Ford Ware has presented two issues for our review as a result of his conviction and sentence for the’possession of cocaine with intent to sell. His claim of error with respect to a police officer’s testimony is meritless, but his challenge to habitual offender sentencing is well-founded. Thus, we affirm Ware’s conviction and remand for findings, required by section 775.-084(1)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), to support the determination that he is a habitual offender. Ware should be present at the hearing on remand. King v. State, 15 F.L.W. 2720 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 7, 1990).

Affirmed in part and remanded for re-sentencing.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.