Case ID: so2d_618/html/0293-01.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

Timothy STIDHUM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 92-942.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    April 20, 1993.
    Rehearing Denied June 8, 1993.
    Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Andrew M. Kassier, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Consuelo Maingot, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
    Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and FERGUSON and GERSTEN, JJ.
   ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant the State’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our original opinion, and issue the following opinion in its stead.

Appellant, Timothy Stidhum, was convicted of burglary with an assault and appeals his sentence as a habitual violent felony offender. We affirm.

Appellant concedes that the State introduced evidence of prior criminal convictions, including certified copies of convictions, necessary for the court to habitualize appellant. However, appellant contends that the trial court did not make the requisite factual findings pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1991), and Adams v. State, 559 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA), dismissed, 564 So.2d 488 (Fla.1990).

Adams v. State, 559 So.2d 1293, construed the 1987 version of the habitual offender statute, which required a specific finding that the defendant constituted a danger to the public. Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1991), does not require a specific finding that the defendant constitutes a danger to the public. State v. Rucker, 613 So.2d 460 (Fla.1993).

Accordingly, because the State presented sufficient evidence to allow the trial court to sentence appellant as a habitual violent felony offender, we affirm.

Affirmed.