KENNETH HAROLD MOODY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment under the habitual violent offender statute must be imposed as reflected in written sentencing documents, even if not explicitly mentioned orally.
Appellant challenged his postconviction motion, arguing that his written sentencing documents incorrectly reflected mandatory minimum terms of impriso…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mandatory Minimum Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*798] PER CURIAM.
Kenneth Moody challenges the trial court’s denial of his posteonviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Only one of the three issues he raised merits discussion. We affirm.
In his motion Moody alleges that his judgment and sentence documents reflect mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment, whereas at no time during any of the proceedings, including sentencing, were the mandatory provisions of the habitual violent offender statute mentioned. He asks accordingly that the written sentencing documents be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement. To do so would render the sentence illegal, as this court has held that the mandatory sentencing provisions of section 775.084(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), are required to be imposed. Sims v. State, 605 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
We recognize the split of authority for this proposition. The first and fifth districts are in accord with this court on the issue. White v. State, 618 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Lowe v. State, 605 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. den., 613 So. 2d 6 (Fla.1992). The remaining districts adopt the view that imposition of these minimum terms is permissive. State v. Morales, 678 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Hill v. State, 652 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
Affirmed.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moody v. State, 699 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1997)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Moody v. State, 696 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), which expressly and directly conflicts with decisions of the Third and Fourth District Courts of Appeal. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We quash the decision below and remand for further proceedings consis…
-
Newell v. State, 714 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1998)…HARDING, Justice. We have for review Newell v. State, 696 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). The basis for our jurisdiction lies in the fact that the Fifth District Court of Appeal rendered a per curiam decision with citation to Moody v. State, 696 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). This Court subsequently accepted Moody for review and quashed the decision below. Moody v. State, 699 So. 2d 1009 (Fla.1997). Thus, we have jurisdiction based on article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. See also Jo…
-
Robbins v. State, 813 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…court erroneously believed at sentencing that it had no discretion in the matter). Because at the time Robbins was sentenced the trial court need not have orally pronounced the minimum mandatory in order for Robbins to serve it, see Moody v. State, 696 So. 2d 797, 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), quashed, 699 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1997), we do not think that it is fair to the State to simply strike it. Instead, we reverse that portion of the sentence and remand for the trial court to decide whether to impose the minimum…
Authorities Cited
- White v. State, 618 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Sims v. State, 605 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Hill v. State, 652 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Lowe v. State, 605 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- State v. Freddy Morales, 678 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)