Wasserman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wasserman v. State

446 So. 2d 231, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12104

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 1984

DocketNo. 83-649

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 446 So. 2d 231 (Wasserman 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

Wasserman v. State, 446 So. 2d 231, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12104 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant’s conviction of disorderly conduct, under section 877.03, Florida Statutes (1981), is affirmed on the basis that her conduct, apart from her spoken words, supports the conviction. See White v. State, 330 So.2d 3, 6 (Fla.1976); Williams v. State, 340 So.2d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 954 (Fla.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1017, 98 S.Ct. 737, 54 L.Ed.2d 763 (1978); K.G. v. State, 338 So.2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

The state concedes that the sentencing order must be corrected so as to reflect the specific amount of credit time to which the defendant is entitled. § 921.161(1), Fla. Stat. (1981); Pruitt v. State, 363 So.2d 611 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Accordingly, we remand for that purpose.

The conviction is affirmed; the sentence is remanded for correction.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant’s conviction of disorderly conduct, under section 877.03, Florida Statutes (1981), is affirmed on the basis that her conduct, apart from her spoken words, supports the conviction. See White v. State, 330 So.2d 3, 6 (Fla.1976); Williams v. State, 340 So.2d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 954 (Fla.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1017, 98 S.Ct. 737, 54 L.Ed.2d 763 (1978); K.G. v. State, 338 So.2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

The state concedes that the sentencing order must be corrected so as to reflect the specific amount of credit time to which the defendant is entitled. § 921.161(1), Fla. Stat. (1981); Pruitt v. State, 363 So.2d 611 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Accordingly, we remand for that purpose.

The conviction is affirmed; the sentence is remanded for correction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

446 So. 2d 231, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wasserman-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack