Shade v. State

925 So. 2d 453, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5390, 2006 WL 908456
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 11, 2006·No. No. 1D05-4555·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Appellant alleges three grounds for relief, only one of which has merit. Specifically, Appellant claims the portion of his sentence which requires hard labor is illegal. We agree.

Where a defendant commits his crimes after 1970, a hard labor condition constitutes an illegal sentence. Harris v. State, 902 So.2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Burney v. State, 705 So.2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Consequently, Appellant is entitled to have the condition of hard labor stricken from his sentence. Harris, 902 So.2d at 292; Burney, 705 So.2d at 90.

The case is remanded for the trial court to strike the condition of hard labor from Appellant’s sentence. Because this is simply a ministerial act, Appellant’s presence is not required. The trial court’s order is affirmed in all other respects.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with directions.

ALLEN, LEWIS, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

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

Shade v. State, 925 So. 2d 453, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5390, 2006 WL 908456 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

925 So. 2d 453 (Shade v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

ROBERT L. EDGECOMB v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2020