Case Name: Michael PINACLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1991-01-02
Citations: 573 So. 2d 925
Docket Number: No. 90-64
Parties: Michael PINACLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and COPE, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 573
Pages: 925–926

Head Matter:
Michael PINACLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 90-64.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jan. 2, 1991.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 25, 1991.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Harvey J. Sepler, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Joan L. Greenberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and COPE, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
As correctly agreed to by the state, the habitual offender sentence imposed below is vacated solely upon the ground that the trial court failed, as is required under the applicable statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1987), to make specific findings of fact showing that an enhanced prison term is required for the protection of the public. Moreno v. State, 550 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The cause is remanded for resentencing in accordance with Moreno. There is no merit in the appellant's other contentions on appeal.
. This requirement was eliminated by a subsequent statutory amendment. Ch. 88-131, § 6(3) Laws of Florida, codified as § 775.084(3), Fla. Stat. (1989); see Garvin v. State, 567 So.2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Arnold v. State, 566 So.2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Donald v. State, 562 So.2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).