Pittman v. State, 595 So. 2d 1101

Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Davis v. State, 528 So.2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 536 So.2d 243 (Fla.1988). We recognize that our decision in Davis is in conflict with Lang v. State, 566 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

DANAHY, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur. PARKER, J., concurs specially.

---

Concurrence Opinion

PARKER, Judge,

concurring specially.

I concur with the majority. But for this court’s opinion in Davis, I would reverse this case because the record fails to show that Pittman waived the trial court’s required findings under Chapter 39, Florida Statutes. See Evans v. State, 594 So.2d 835 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (concurring opinion).

Case Details

Case Name: Pittman v. State

Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida

Date Published: Mar 25, 1992

Citations: 595 So. 2d 1101; 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 3319; 1992 WL 57882; No. 91-00943

Docket Number: No. 91-00943

Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.