Wasserman v. State

446 So. 2d 231, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12104
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 6, 1984·No. No. 83-649·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

446 So. 2d 231 (Wasserman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wiltzer v. State
756 So. 2d 1063 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Miller v. State
667 So. 2d 325 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
White v. State
39 Fla. Supp. 2d 49 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1989)