King v. State

354 So. 2d 944, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 14922
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in King v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 317 So. 2d 852
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 3, 1978·No. No. 77-697·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. However we agree with appellant that there are imperfections in his judgment and sentence. The present sentence does not specify the amount of credit for time served 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. Finally, the judgment states that appellant entered a plea of guilty to the charge when in fact a jury found him guilty. We remand the case for correction of judgment and sentence, and appellant need not be present at that time.

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

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

King v. State, 354 So. 2d 944, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 14922 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

354 So. 2d 944 (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)