Moody v. StateMoody v. State
Kenneth Moody challenges the trial court‘s denial of his postconviction motion filed pursuant to
In his motion Moody alleges that his judgment and sentence documents reflect mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment, whereas at no time during any of the proceedings, including sentencing, were the mandatory provisions of the habitual violent offender statute mentioned. He asks accordingly that the written sentencing documents be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement. To do so would render the sentence illegal, as this court has held that the mandatory sentencing provisions of
We recognize the split of authority for this proposition. The first and fifth districts are in accord with this court on the issue. White v. State, 618 So.2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Lowe v. State, 605 So.2d 505 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. den., 613 So.2d 6 (Fla.1992). The remaining districts adopt the view that imposition of these minimum terms is permissive. State v. Morales, 678 So.2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Hill v. State, 652 So.2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
Affirmed.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.