Case ID: so2d_537/html/0696-01.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

Ira LINK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 88-1491.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Jan. 31, 1989.
    Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and N. Joseph Durant, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.
    Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and JORGENSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

The state concedes that the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant as an habitual offender because the trial court’s oral pronouncements were not supported by written, specific findings of fact. We, therefore, remand for the trial court to set forth a written factual basis for its habitual offender determination and to resen-tence the defendant. Watson v. State, 492 So.2d 831 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).