Hammock v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hammock v. State

353 So. 2d 218, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17028

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 28, 1977·No. No. 77-630·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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

The only point which merits discussion is the propriety of the appellants’ sentences 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. Brooks v. State, 349 So.2d 794 (Fla.2d DCA 1977).

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

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and GRIMES and RYDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

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

The only point which merits discussion is the propriety of the appellants’ sentences 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. Brooks v. State, 349 So.2d 794 (Fla.2d DCA 1977).

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

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and GRIMES and RYDER, JJ., concur.

Hammock v. State, 353 So. 2d 218, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17028 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

353 So. 2d 218 (Hammock v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related