Moore v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moore v. State

708 So. 2d 301, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1899, 1998 WL 79097

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 26, 1998

DocketNo. 96-3053

StatusPublished

This text of 708 So. 2d 301 (Moore v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moore v. State, 708 So. 2d 301, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1899, 1998 WL 79097 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Marvin Moore appeals his conviction and sentence for armed robbery.¹ We affirm the conviction but reverse the sentence and remand with directions to conform the written sentence to the oral pronouncement of sentence by the trial court.

One of the contested issues at trial was whether Mr. Moore robbed the victim with a “firearm” or with a “deadly weapon.” In an apparent tactical effort to avoid the second charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, defense counsel took the position that Mr. Moore was carrying a BB gun which was a deadly weapon but not a firearm. After a bench trial,² the court ruled that the State had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the weapon was a shotgun, concluded it was a BB gun, and convicted Mr. Moore of armed robbery under section 812.13(2), Florida Statutes (1993). Now, though conceding that the issue was not preserved, Mr. Moore seeks reversal of his conviction by arguing that the State failed to present evidence of an essential element of the crime of armed robbery. We conclude that this issue was not preserved. Moreover, sufficient evidence was presented to the court below to permit the factual conclusion that Mr. Moore committed the robbery with a deadly weapon. See State v. Hudson, 698 So.2d 831 (Fla.1997).

The second issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in entering a written sentencing order which departed from the oral pronouncement made at the sentencing hearing. Although the defendant was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender, the sentence orally pronounced did not include a minimum mandatory term. The written sentence imposes a ten year minimum mandatory term. Under White v. State, 618 So.2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), the written order would have been affirmed, under the reasoning that the orally pronounced sentence, without a minimum mandatory term, was illegal. However, White is no longer the controlling authority. We conclude that the trial court had the discretion to enter the orally pronounced sentence with no minimum mandatory term, and, therefore, it was error to enter a written sentence which departed from the oral pronouncement. See Moody v. State, 699 So.2d 1009 (Fla.1997); State v. Hudson, 698 So.2d 831, 833 (Fla.1997).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the appellant’s conviction, but we REVERSE the written sentence and REMAND with directions that the lower court bring the written sentencing documents into conformity with the oral pronouncement of sentence. See Taylor v. State, 425 So.2d 1191, 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

KAHN, MICKLE and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Marvin Moore appeals his conviction and sentence for armed robbery.¹ We affirm the conviction but reverse the sentence and remand with directions to conform the written sentence to the oral pronouncement of sentence by the trial court.

One of the contested issues at trial was whether Mr. Moore robbed the victim with a “firearm” or with a “deadly weapon.” In an apparent tactical effort to avoid the second charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, defense counsel took the position that Mr. Moore was carrying a BB gun which was a deadly weapon but not a firearm. After a bench trial,² the court ruled that the State had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the weapon was a shotgun, concluded it was a BB gun, and convicted Mr. Moore of armed robbery under section 812.13(2), Florida Statutes (1993). Now, though conceding that the issue was not preserved, Mr. Moore seeks reversal of his conviction by arguing that the State failed to present evidence of an essential element of the crime of armed robbery. We conclude that this issue was not preserved. Moreover, sufficient evidence was presented to the court below to permit the factual conclusion that Mr. Moore committed the robbery with a deadly weapon. See State v. Hudson, 698 So.2d 831 (Fla.1997).

The second issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in entering a written sentencing order which departed from the oral pronouncement made at the sentencing hearing. Although the defendant was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender, the sentence orally pronounced did not include a minimum mandatory term. The written sentence imposes a ten year minimum mandatory term. Under White v. State, 618 So.2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), the written order would have been affirmed, under the reasoning that the orally pronounced sentence, without a minimum mandatory term, was illegal. However, White is no longer the controlling authority. We conclude that the trial court had the discretion to enter the orally pronounced sentence with no minimum mandatory term, and, therefore, it was error to enter a written sentence which departed from the oral pronouncement. See Moody v. State, 699 So.2d 1009 (Fla.1997); State v. Hudson, 698 So.2d 831, 833 (Fla.1997).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the appellant’s conviction, but we REVERSE the written sentence and REMAND with directions that the lower court bring the written sentencing documents into conformity with the oral pronouncement of sentence. See Taylor v. State, 425 So.2d 1191, 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

KAHN, MICKLE and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

708 So. 2d 301, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1899, 1998 WL 79097, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack