You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Moiter v. State

Citations: 644 So. 2d 154; 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 10364; 1994 WL 583283Docket: No. 93-03461

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; October 26, 1994; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The court finds deficiencies in the written sentences issued for Moiter in Case no. 90-577, where the trial judge miscommunicated the sentence for Count 32 during oral pronouncement. Although the judge indicated a sentence of ten years’ probation for Count 32, the written sentence incorrectly states fifteen years in prison followed by probation. The case is remanded to correct this discrepancy to align the written sentence with the oral pronouncement. Additionally, the written sentences fail to accurately reflect credit for time served related to Moiter's previous conviction (Count 29) and probation revocation. Despite the trial court's verbal assurance of credit for time served, this was not documented correctly. Furthermore, in Case no. 89-10900, while 325 days' jail credit is noted for Count 1, Count 2 lacks this credit. The court orders remand for the trial court to amend the written sentences to accurately reflect the appropriate credit for time served.

Legal Issues Addressed

Amendment of Written Sentences for Jail Credit

Application: The court orders the trial court to amend the written sentences to include appropriate credit for time served, highlighting an omission in Case no. 89-10900 for Count 2.

Reasoning: The court orders remand for the trial court to amend the written sentences to accurately reflect the appropriate credit for time served.

Credit for Time Served

Application: The court addresses the failure to document accurately the credit for time served in the written sentence despite the trial court's verbal assurance.

Reasoning: Despite the trial court's verbal assurance of credit for time served, this was not documented correctly.

Discrepancy Between Oral Pronouncement and Written Sentence

Application: The court identifies an error where the written sentence does not match the oral pronouncement, requiring correction to ensure consistency.

Reasoning: The court finds deficiencies in the written sentences issued for Moiter in Case no. 90-577, where the trial judge miscommunicated the sentence for Count 32 during oral pronouncement.