McNeal v. State
350 So. 2d 34, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16437
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in McNeal v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 303 So. 2d 698 →
Opinion
The only point which merits discussion is the propriety of appellant’s sentence to confinement “at hard labor.” To be imprisoned “at hard labor” is improper because no existing state statute provides for imprisonment at hard labor as a sentence for any offense. McDonald v. State, 321 So.2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
Remanded for the purpose of striking the language “at hard labor” from the sentenc[35]*35ing order; otherwise affirmed. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
McNeal v. State, 350 So. 2d 34, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16437 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).
350 So. 2d 34 (McNeal v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
McDonald v. State
321 So. 2d 453 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)