Court: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – As long as enhanced penalty remains a
misdemeanor, then the State need not allege prior DUI convictions in charging
document. Judgment and sentence affirmed. Wagner v. State, No. CRC 04-25
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF
JAMES LEON WAGNER
Appeal No. CRC 04-00025 APANO
Opinion filed ________________.
Appeal from a judgment and sentence
entered by the Pinellas County Court
County Judge Sonny Im
Sara Bryson, Esq.
Assistant Public Defender
Eric Herrmann, Esq.
Assistant State Attorney
THIS MATTER is before the Court on James Wagner’s appeal from a judgment and sentence entered by the Pinellas County Court. After reviewing the briefs and record, this Court affirms the judgment and sentence.
The defendant claims that his sentence is improper. The record reflects that the defendant’s sentence for his DUI conviction was enhanced (more time in jail) because he had prior DUI convictions. A review of the record reveals that the State put on the record sufficient information to establish that the defendant had committed prior DUI’s. The defendant claims the enhancement was improper because the State failed to notify him in the charging document that it was seeking an enhanced penalty.
This same issue, however, was addressed in the case of State v Haddix, 668 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). In Haddix, the appellate court held that as long as the enhanced penalty remained a misdemeanor, then the State need not allege prior convictions in the charging document. Since the defendant’s enhanced sentence was still a misdemeanor, the State did not need to allege prior convictions in the charging document. The sentence was proper.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
AND ORDERED in Chambers at
Nancy Moate Ley
R. Timothy Peters
John A. Schaefer
cc: State Attorney