Wasserman v. State

Decided March 6, 1984

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1984-03-06

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[t]he defendant's conviction of disorderly conduct ... is affirmed on the basis that her conduct, apart from her spoken words, supports the conviction”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 756 So. 2d 1063 - Wiltzer v. State

Relies on Castor v. United States · Green v. State · 330 So. 2d 3 - White v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1984-03-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 2000

3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The 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).

¶2The 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.

¶3The conviction is affirmed; the sentence is remanded for correction.