Case Name: Arthur FLEWELLING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1991-02-06
Citations: 576 So. 2d 742
Docket Number: No. 89-2450
Parties: Arthur FLEWELLING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: ERVIN, NIMMONS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 576
Pages: 742–743

Head Matter:
Arthur FLEWELLING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 89-2450.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Feb. 6, 1991.
On Motion for Rehearing March 27, 1991.
Barbara M. Linthicum, Public Defender, and Lynn A. Williams, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and William A. Hatch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Arthur Flewelling appeals his conviction and sentence on charges of grand theft of an automobile, forgery, uttering, and petit theft. He was sentenced as an habitual felony offender. He raises four points on appeal dealing with his sentence as an habitual felony offender. Since we reverse on the first point, we find it unnecessary to reach the other three.
Flewelling contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him as an habitual felony offender based only on prior out-of-state felony convictions because the applicable statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), explicitly requires proof that the "defendant has previously been convicted of two or more felonies in this state." It is agreed that Flewelling's prior felony convictions did not occur in Florida. This court has previously held that the 1988 habitual offender statute requires that the prior convictions of felonies must have occurred in Florida. Parrish v. State, 571 So.2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Therefore, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
ERVIN, NIMMONS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.