Dagan v. State
Decision Date | 17 April 2019 |
Docket Number | Case No. 2D17-4828 |
Citation | 302 So.3d 411 (Mem) |
Parties | Patricia DAGAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Kevin Briggs, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Susan D. Dunlevy, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, and Helene S. Parnes, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa (substituted as counsel of record after brief was filed), for Appellee.
ORDER RELINQUISHING JURISDICTION
Patricia Dagan has appealed her convictions and sentences on three counts. However, the State correctly points out that the record does not contain a written, judge-signed sentencing document reflecting the time-served sentences for counts two and three. Rather, the only written memorialization of the court's oral imposition of those sentences is a "memo of sentence," or "snapout," which is signed only by the courtroom clerk.
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(l ), we relinquish jurisdiction for 30 days, during which the trial court shall render a proper sentencing document for counts two and three that complies with the dictates of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986(a) . This document shall replace the snapout form that the trial court employed for those two counts, forms that the Tenth Circuit has persisted in using despite a cavalcade of opinions from this court decrying this practice and pointing out specific problems with the circuit's widespread use of the forms. See Hendrix v. State, 224 So.3d 823, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ( ); Gray v. State, 198 So.3d 780, 782–83 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ( ); Phillips v. State, 198 So.3d 789, 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), Zaborowski v. State, 126 So.3d 405, 407 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), Thar v. State, 8 So.3d 1204, 1205 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), and Cochrane v. State, 997 So.2d 1221, 1223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (Altenbernd, J., concurring) ( ); Woods v. State, 987 So.2d 669, 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (); Akridge v. Crow, 903 So.2d 346, 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ( ); Sutton v. State, 838 So.2d 616, 617 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ( ); Heath v. State, 840 So.2d 307, 308–09 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ( ); Gordon v. State, 827 So.2d 346, 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ( ); Braswell v. State, 804 So.2d 523, 523 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) ( ); Monroe v. State, 784 So.2d 1163, 1164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) ( ); Richardson v. State, 761 So.2d 1232, 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ( ); Monroe v. State, 760 So.2d 289, 290 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ( ); Wagner v. State, 744 So.2d 1155, 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 19...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pittman v. State
...cases and noting that this court has been discouraging the use of "snap-outs" for over twenty years); see also Dagan v. State, 302 So.3d 411 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 17, 2019) (collecting cases and identifying the myriad ways in which snap-outs have been used inappropriately). More importantly, we......