Goodson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Goodson v. State

354 So. 2d 1262

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Goodson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 392 So. 2d 1335 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 10, 1978·No. No. 77-1370·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment appealed is affirmed, but this case is remanded for resentencing of appellant. The present sentence does not specifically set forth the period of credit time to be allowed as required by Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975). Smith v. State, 310 So.2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Moreover, the phrase “at hard labor” in the sentence is improper because no existing state statute provides for imprisonment at hard labor as a sentence for any offense. Speller v. State, 305 So.2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). Appellant need not be present at resentencing.

BOARDMAN, C. J., and GRIMES and OTT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment appealed is affirmed, but this case is remanded for resentencing of appellant. The present sentence does not specifically set forth the period of credit time to be allowed as required by Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975). Smith v. State, 310 So.2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Moreover, the phrase “at hard labor” in the sentence is improper because no existing state statute provides for imprisonment at hard labor as a sentence for any offense. Speller v. State, 305 So.2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). Appellant need not be present at resentencing.

BOARDMAN, C. J., and GRIMES and OTT, JJ., concur.

Goodson v. State, 354 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

354 So. 2d 1262 (Goodson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related