Meehan v. State (526 So. 2d 1083, 1988)

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.