VAUGHN M. PETERSON, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Pace v. State, 662 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
  …remand for resentencing and for correction of the sentencing order that erroneously checked off the box indicating an enhanced “habitual offender” sentence for this misdemeanor. Cribbs v. State, 599 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Peterson v. State, 576 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). The second issue relates to whether Appellant qualified for habitual felony offender classification and sentencing. This is the type of question that requires a factual determination. Therefore, it is an inappropriate issue for…
• Varick F. DuBOSE v. State, 585 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
  …misdemeanor convictions. Upon remand, the sentencing order for Counts II, III and V must be corrected to reflect that the special sentencing provision for habitual offender status does not apply to these misdemeanor offenses. See Peterson v. State, 576 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). JOANOS, C.J., and SMITH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.…
• Simmons v. State, 594 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
  …obation for this count. The written sentence also incorrectly reflects that appellant was sentenced as an habitual offender on the petit theft count. Appellant cannot be sentenced as an habitual offender for a misdemeanor offense. Peterson v. State, 576 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); § 775.084(l)(a)2, Fla.Stat. (1989). Fourth, the written sentence imposed for the fraudulent use of credit card convictions, counts eight through twelve, incorrectly states that the period of incarceration should be followed by…