Case Name: John MEEHAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-06-29
Citations: 526 So. 2d 1083
Docket Number: No. 87-0907
Parties: John MEEHAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 526
Pages: 1083–1084

Head Matter:
John MEEHAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 87-0907.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
June 29, 1988.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Tanja Ostapoff, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant's conviction but remand this cause for resentencing because of the trial court's failure to make a specific finding that enhanced sentencing under the habitual offender statute is necessary for the protection of the public and so state the factual predicate therefor. Upon re- sentencing, the trial court may again consider whether the habitual offender statute should be applied, and, in the event it is found to apply, the above-stated findings must be included in the sentencing order. See Hopkins v. State, 463 So.2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.