RANDALL STEVEN MOE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1990-01-16
No. 89-2398
Before BASKIN, LEVY and GERSTEN, JJ.
554 So. 2d 675 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1990) Negative Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Mikenas v. State, 460 So. 2d 359 (Fla.1984); Smith v. State, 453 So. 2d 388 (Fla.1984); Zeigler v. State, 452 So. 2d 537 (Fla.1984); Ford v. State, 407 So. 2d 907 (Fla.1981); State v. Wooden, 246 So. 2d 755 (Fla.1971).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • State v. Rhoda Smith, 592 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
    …ion.” Pope, 561 So. 2d at 556. The opinion also acknowledges that the practice in some districts, including this one, has been to remand in order for the trial court to reduce its oral reasons to a written order, id.; see also, e.g., State v. Evans, 554 So. 2d 675 (Fla.App.1990); State v. Gavins, 555 So. 2d 933 (Fla.App.1990); Oden v. State, 463 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), aff'd 478 So. 2d 51 (Fla.1985), and Pope effectively overrules those decisions. Although we follow Pope as announced, we certify to th…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw