Case ID: so2d_613/html/0147-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mark MOFFETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 91-3902.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Feb. 18, 1993.
    Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and James W. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges his habitual offender sentence, arguing that the court failed to make the requisite findings under section 775.084, Florida Statutes. Because the appellant expressly agreed to be sentenced as a habitual offender, the necessity of specific findings under the statute was waived. See Cato v. State, 611 So.2d 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Robinson v. State, 605 So.2d 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The challenged sentenced is therefore affirmed.

ZEHMER, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ„ concur.