Morrow v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Morrow v. State

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

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 13, 1978·No. No. 77-421·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, but this case is remanded for resentencing of appellant. The present sentence does [960] 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.

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] 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.

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

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

Pincite

353 So. 2d 959 (Morrow v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related