Hunter v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hunter v. State

351 So. 2d 393, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16788

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hunter v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 314 So. 2d 174 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 4, 1977·No. No. 76-1889·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order revoking appellant’s probation. However we remand this case for resentencing of appellant. The present sentence does not specify the amount of credit for time served appellant is to receive as Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975), requires. Brooks v. State, 349 So.2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Moreover, the phrase “at hard labor” in the sentence is improper. Brooks v. State, supra. Appellant need not be present at resentencing.

HOBSON, Acting 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.

We affirm the order revoking appellant’s probation. However we remand this case for resentencing of appellant. The present sentence does not specify the amount of credit for time served appellant is to receive as Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975), requires. Brooks v. State, 349 So.2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Moreover, the phrase “at hard labor” in the sentence is improper. Brooks v. State, supra. Appellant need not be present at resentencing.

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

Hunter v. State, 351 So. 2d 393, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16788 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

351 So. 2d 393 (Hunter v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related