Pearson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pearson v. State

354 So. 2d 97, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17029

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 28, 1977

DocketNos. 77-908, 77-909 & 77-845 consolidated

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 354 So. 2d 97 (Pearson 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

Pearson v. State, 354 So. 2d 97, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17029 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to plea negotiations appellant was sentenced to life probation for robbery (case number 76-6325, appeal number 77-845), fifteen years in prison for another count of robbery (case number 76-7080, appeal number 77-908), and five years in prison for giving false information to obtain unemployment compensation (circuit court number 76-5178, appeal number 77-909). All three sentences are to be served concurrently.

In this appeal appellant argues that the trial court erred by simultaneously placing him on probation and sentencing him to prison. However, we interpret the sentences so that appellant’s life probation does not commence until he is released from prison on the other two charges.

As so interpreted, the judgments appealed from are affirmed, but these cases are remanded for resentencing of appellant. The sentences in circuit court case numbers 76-7080 (appeal number 77-908) and 76-5178.(appeal number 77-909) do 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 sentences is improper. Brooks v. State, supra. The appellant does not have to be present at resentencing.

SCHEB, Acting C. J., and OTT and DAN-AHY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to plea negotiations appellant was sentenced to life probation for robbery (case number 76-6325, appeal number 77-845), fifteen years in prison for another count of robbery (case number 76-7080, appeal number 77-908), and five years in prison for giving false information to obtain unemployment compensation (circuit court number 76-5178, appeal number 77-909). All three sentences are to be served concurrently.

In this appeal appellant argues that the trial court erred by simultaneously placing him on probation and sentencing him to prison. However, we interpret the sentences so that appellant’s life probation does not commence until he is released from prison on the other two charges.

As so interpreted, the judgments appealed from are affirmed, but these cases are remanded for resentencing of appellant. The sentences in circuit court case numbers 76-7080 (appeal number 77-908) and 76-5178.(appeal number 77-909) do 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 sentences is improper. Brooks v. State, supra. The appellant does not have to be present at resentencing.

SCHEB, Acting C. J., and OTT and DAN-AHY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 So. 2d 97, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearson-v-state-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack