Shade v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Shade v. State

925 So. 2d 453, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5390, 2006 WL 908456

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 11, 2006

DocketNo. 1D05-4555

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 925 So. 2d 453 (Shade 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

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

Pincite

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