PER CURIAM.
Appellant raises two points in this appeal. He first challenges the constitutionality of the revised habitual offender statute. We find no merit in that argument. See Roberts v. State,
Appellant's second point is that costs and attorney's fees were imposed in this case without notice and an opportunity to be heard. Appellee argues that appellant's failure to object or...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
