Case ID: so2d_602/html/0642-01.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

Joseph ROWE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 91-02719.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 10, 1992.
    Rehearing Denied Aug. 13, 1992.
    James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Brad Permar, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Peggy A. .Quince, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

This is the second time the sentencing procedures in this case have been appealed to this court. In Rowe v. State, 579 So.2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 589 So.2d 292 (Fla.1991), we affirmed appellant’s conviction of robbery by force but reversed and remanded his habitual offender sentence for failure of the trial judge to make the necessary findings pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1987). On remand, the trial judge has again failed to make the necessary findings to habitualize appellant pursuant, to the applicable 1987 version of section 775.084. The trial judge has clearly applied the 1988 modification to the statute which deleted the 1987 version’s requirement that the trial judge before sentencing a defendant pursuant to the habitual offender law shall make “a finding that the imposition of sentence under this section is necessary for the protection of the public from further criminal activity by the defendant_” See § 775.084(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1987).

We again reverse appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing. On remand, the trial court may again impose a habitual offender sentence if the proper findings pursuant to the applicable 1987 version of the habitual offender statute are made.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and HALL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.