Case Name: Fred D. PARRISH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1990-12-14
Citations: 571 So. 2d 97
Docket Number: No. 89-3077
Parties: Fred D. PARRISH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: ERVIN, WIGGINGTON and MINER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 571
Pages: 97–98

Head Matter:
Fred D. PARRISH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 89-3077.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Dec. 14, 1990.
Barbara M. Linthicum, Public Defender, Lawrence M. Korn, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., William A. Hatch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Fred D. Parrish, pled nolo con-tendere to a July 12, 1989, robbery. He was sentenced as a habitual felony offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), based upon a pair of Alabama burglary convictions. On appeal, he argues that the 1988 version of the habitual offender statute requires at least, two Florida felony convictions, and that his Alabama convictions were insufficient to make him a habitual offender. The state concedes error on this point, and we agree that appellant was improperly classified as a habitual offender.
To be deemed a habitual felony offender, the 1988 habitual offender statute necessitates an initial finding that the defendant has "previously been convicted of two or more felonies in this state." § 775.084(l)(a)l, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1988). Although the statute contains additional requirements which permit the use of out-of-state convictions, the state's failure to establish the first requirement forecloses the possibility of habitual offender classification. Because appellant only had out-of-state convictions, he was outside the scope of the habitual offender provision.
Accordingly, we must REVERSE appellant's enhanced sentence and REMAND the case for resentencing.
ERVIN, WIGGINGTON and MINER, JJ., concur.