Smock v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Smock v. State

361 So. 2d 427, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15380

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 14, 1978·No. Nos. 77-1544 and 77-1957·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we find the appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error; therefore, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

The only point which merits discussion is the propriety of the appellant’s sentence to confinement “at hard labor.” To be imprisoned “at hard labor” is improper because no existing statute provides for its imposition as a sentence for any offense. Speller v. State, 305 So.2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).

Remanded for the purpose of striking the language “at hard labor” from the sentencing order; otherwise, affirmed. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

OTT, Acting C. J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we find the appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error; therefore, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

The only point which merits discussion is the propriety of the appellant’s sentence to confinement “at hard labor.” To be imprisoned “at hard labor” is improper because no existing statute provides for its imposition as a sentence for any offense. Speller v. State, 305 So.2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).

Remanded for the purpose of striking the language “at hard labor” from the sentencing order; otherwise, affirmed. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

OTT, Acting C. J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.

Smock v. State, 361 So. 2d 427, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15380 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

361 So. 2d 427 (Smock v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related