Morrow v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Morrow v. State

353 So. 2d 959, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 14851

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 13, 1978

DocketNo. 77-421

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 353 So. 2d 959 (Morrow v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morrow v. State, 353 So. 2d 959, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 14851 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, but this case is remanded for resentencing of appellant. The present sentence does [960]*960not 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.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and SCHEB and OTT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, but this case is remanded for resentencing of appellant. The present sentence does [960]*960not 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.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and SCHEB and OTT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

353 So. 2d 959, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 14851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrow-v-state-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack