Franklin v. State

361 So. 2d 442, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16406
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Franklin v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 374 So. 2d 1151
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 9, 1978·No. No. 76-1319·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we find the appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error; therefore, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

The only point which merits discussion is the propriety of the appellant’s sentence to confinement “at hard labor.” To be imprisoned “at hard labor” is improper because no existing state statute provides for its imposition as a sentence for any offense. Speller v. State, 305 So.2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).

Remanded for the purpose of striking the language “at hard labor” from the sentencing order; otherwise, affirmed. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

GRIMES, C. J., and SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur.

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

Franklin v. State, 361 So. 2d 442, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16406 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

361 So. 2d 442 (Franklin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Speller v. State
305 So. 2d 231 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)