Rowe v. State (626 So. 2d 257, 1993)

PER CURIAM.

The appellant’s sentence is before this court for the third time on appeal. He contends the habitual offender sentence imposed upon remand is improper because the trial court once again faded to make specific findings of fact to satisfy section 775.084(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1987). Although the trial court’s findings made on remand are conclu-sory, the record provides ample support for the trial court’s conclusions and allows meaningful appellate review. We therefore affirm the appellant’s sentence as a habitual felony-offender. See McClain v. State, 356 So.2d 1256 (Fla.2d DCA 1978).

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and BLUE, JJ., concur.