Deering v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Deering v. State

988 So. 2d 1237, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 12485, 2008 WL 3876037

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 22, 2008

DocketNo. 5D08-1602

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 988 So. 2d 1237 (Deering v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Deering v. State, 988 So. 2d 1237, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 12485, 2008 WL 3876037 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael T. Deering appeals from the summary denial of his rule 3.800(a)¹ motion to correct an illegal sentence. Deer-ing was convicted in 1977 of robbery with a firearm and sentenced to imprisonment “at hard labor” for the term of his natural life. The trial court properly denied Deering’s claim that his life sentence was illegal because it was an indefinite sentence, Alvarez v. State, 358 So.2d 10 (Fla.1978), or because it constituted cruel and unusual punishment. See, e.g., Blackshear v. State, 771 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). However, the trial court improperly denied Deering’s claim that the statutes in effect at the time of his sentencing did not authorize the imposition of a sentence “at hard labor.” See Harris v. State, 902 So.2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Zygadlo v. State, 676 So.2d 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order as to this point and remand with directions that the court strike the “hard labor” condition in Deering’s sentence. In all other respects, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

SAWAYA, PLEUS, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Michael T. Deering appeals from the summary denial of his rule 3.800(a)¹ motion to correct an illegal sentence. Deer-ing was convicted in 1977 of robbery with a firearm and sentenced to imprisonment “at hard labor” for the term of his natural life. The trial court properly denied Deering’s claim that his life sentence was illegal because it was an indefinite sentence, Alvarez v. State, 358 So.2d 10 (Fla.1978), or because it constituted cruel and unusual punishment. See, e.g., Blackshear v. State, 771 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). However, the trial court improperly denied Deering’s claim that the statutes in effect at the time of his sentencing did not authorize the imposition of a sentence “at hard labor.” See Harris v. State, 902 So.2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Zygadlo v. State, 676 So.2d 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order as to this point and remand with directions that the court strike the “hard labor” condition in Deering’s sentence. In all other respects, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

SAWAYA, PLEUS, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

988 So. 2d 1237, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 12485, 2008 WL 3876037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deering-v-state-fladistctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack