King v. State
351 So. 2d 392, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16789
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in King v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 317 So. 2d 852 →
Opinion
The judgment appealed from is affirmed, but this case is remanded for resentencing of appellant. The sentence does not specifically set forth the period of credit time to be allowed as required by Section 921.-161(1), Florida Statutes (1975). 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. The appellant does not have to be present at resentencing.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
King v. State, 351 So. 2d 392, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16789 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).
351 So. 2d 392 (King v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Brooks v. State
349 So. 2d 794 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)