Case Name: John COOPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-12-02
Citations: 609 So. 2d 713
Docket Number: No. 91-2909
Parties: John COOPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and LETTS and HERSEY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 609
Pages: 713–714

Head Matter:
John COOPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 91-2909.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Dec. 2, 1992.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Robert Friedman, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Don M. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant John Cooper correctly argues that the trial court failed to make the requisite factual findings regarding his predicate convictions not having been set aside or pardoned as required under section 775.-084(l)(a)3. and 4. This is a prerequisite for sentencing a defendant as an habitual offender. We therefore reverse and remand on the authority of Van Bryant v. State, 602 So.2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Banes v. State, 597 So.2d 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Simon v. State, 589 So.2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA1991); Rolle v. State, 586 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); King v. State, 580 So.2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (en banc).
On remand, the trial court may again sentence appellant as an habitual offender, provided it makes the required findings. Van Bryant.
Appellant's argument as to sufficiency of notice is without merit.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and LETTS and HERSEY, JJ., concur.